<P> On June 25 , 2013 , the Court ruled by a 5 - to - 4 vote that Section 4 ( b ) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old , making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states . The Court did not strike down Section 5 , but without Section 4 ( b ) , no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula . </P>
<P> On June 25 , 2013 , the Court ruled by a 5 - to - 4 vote that Section 4 ( b ) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old , making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states . The Court did not strike down Section 5 , but without Section 4 ( b ) , no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula . </P>
n 2013 the supreme court struck down which part of the 1965 voting rights act
n 2013 the supreme court struck down which part of the 1965 voting rights act
Section 4 ( b )
Section 4 ( b )