Ruth Bader Ginsburg

No public contact details available.

Open letters

Write to Ruth

Be the first constituent to publish an open letter to this representative.

The Supreme Court rules 5-4 in Rucho v. Common Cause (consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek) that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond federal court jurisdiction. Chief Justice John Roberts writes for the majority, closing the federal courthouse door to challenges against maps drawn for partisan advantage. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent, joined by three liberals, calls the ruling a "tragedy for democracy." The ruling leaves partisan gerrymandering regulation entirely to state courts and legislatures, while racial gerrymandering challenges remain available in federal court.

The Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act in a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, rendering Section 5 preclearance unenforceable. Section 5 had required states with a history of voter discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws or redistricting maps. The ruling freed nine states, primarily in the South, from the preclearance requirement. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, warning the decision was like throwing away an umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.

The Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, invalidating the formula that determined which states needed federal approval before changing election laws. The majority held the 40-year-old coverage formula no longer reflected current conditions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Within hours, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced that a previously-blocked voter ID law would take effect immediately.

The Supreme Court rules 5-4 in Shelby County v. Holder that the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional, effectively disabling Section 5 preclearance requirements. Chief Justice John Roberts writes that the formula, which used 1965 and 1972 voting data to determine which states must seek federal approval before changing election laws, is based on "40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day." Because Section 5 relies on Section 4(b) to identify covered jurisdictions, the ruling immediately frees Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Alaska, and Arizona to change voting laws without DOJ approval. Within hours of the ruling, Texas announces it will implement a voter ID law previously blocked under preclearance.

The Supreme Court rules 5-4 in Shelby County v. Holder (570 U.S. 529, 2013) that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the formula used to determine which states and localities must get federal preclearance before changing voting laws, is unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts writes that it relies on 40-year-old data. The decision effectively disables Section 5 preclearance, freeing Texas, North Carolina, and other states to immediately pass voter ID laws and redistricting plans without DOJ approval.