What did Shelby County v. Holder (2013) decide about the VRA's preclearance provision?

• A. Strengthened federal preclearance oversight.
• B. Expanded the preclearance formula to more jurisdictions.
• C. Struck down the coverage formula, thus weakening federal preclearance oversight.
• D. Preclearance remains fully in place as before.

Answer: (C)

The main idea here is how Shelby County v. Holder affected the preclearance process under the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court held that the coverage formula in Section 4(b)—which determined which jurisdictions needed federal preclearance under Section 5—was unconstitutional. Because that formula was struck down, there was no valid way to determine who must seek preclearance, so the mechanism cannot operate as before. The Court did not strike down Section 5 itself, but without a working formula, preclearance cannot function until Congress creates a new, constitutional formula. So this answer reflects that the coverage formula was struck down, thereby weakening federal preclearance oversight. The other options don’t fit because the decision did not strengthen or expand oversight, nor did it leave preclearance fully in place.