The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and change frequently; always consult with a qualified professional regarding your specific situation. The author and publisher assume no liability for any actions taken based on this information.
- The 2013 speech took place during the ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco
- The ABA Medal is presented for service to American jurisprudence
- Her voting rights message focused on equality and access to the ballot
- The speech was framed as a response to Shelby County v. Holder
- The Supreme Court oral argument record shows how the preclearance issue was discussed
- The ABA House of Delegates addressed voting rights at the same meeting
- The federal and state layers of voting rules often intersect in public debates
- Disagreements about voting rules often end up in courts and legislatures
- Some common points of confusion come from legal terms that sound similar
- Sources
Key Facts
- Federal and state: On Aug. 12, 2013, Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke at the American Bar Association Annual Meeting in San Francisco while accepting the ABA Medal.
- Federal and state: The American Bar Association has described the ABA Medal as the association’s highest honor and lists Clinton as the 2013 recipient.
- Federal level: Clinton’s remarks criticized the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Shelby County v. Holder in connection with the Voting Rights Act.
- Federal level: The question presented in Shelby County v. Holder asked whether Congress exceeded its enforcement authority when it reauthorized Section 5 using Section 4(b)’s coverage formula.
- Federal level: The Supreme Court held oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder on Feb. 27, 2013.
- Federal and state: The ABA House of Delegates adopted a voting rights policy at the 2013 Annual Meeting that referenced Shelby County v. Holder.
- State level: Clinton referenced actions in several states when discussing rules that she said could make voting harder for some groups.
- Federal and state: News coverage described her message as a call to preserve protections against discrimination in elections.
The 2013 speech took place during the ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco
On Aug. 12, 2013, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered remarks at the American Bar Association Annual Meeting in San Francisco and received the ABA Medal during the gathering.
The ABA Medal is presented for service to American jurisprudence
The ABA describes the ABA Medal as an award for a member of the bench or bar who has “rendered conspicuous service in the cause of American jurisprudence,” and the ABA’s list of recipients includes Clinton for 2013.
Her voting rights message focused on equality and access to the ballot
In press coverage of the address, Clinton described a long history of excluding groups from full participation and argued that discrimination in elections remained a real concern.
“Anyone that says that racial discrimination is no longer a problem in American elections must not be paying attention,” Clinton said, according to The Washington Post.
The same reporting described her remarks as a forceful defense of the Voting Rights Act, along with criticism of efforts that she said could make voting harder for African Americans, Hispanics, and other voters.
The speech was framed as a response to Shelby County v. Holder
Clinton’s remarks came soon after a Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder that, as reported by The Washington Post, struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which it described as a part of the law that designated which states must have federal approval for changes in election laws.
Within the Supreme Court record, the case was presented as a constitutional challenge tied to how Congress renewed parts of the Voting Rights Act in 2006, including Section 5 and the Section 4(b) coverage formula.
The Supreme Court’s case materials in Shelby County describe the issue in terms of “Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b),” which the filings call a “preclearance obligation” for covered jurisdictions.
For readers looking for a primary-source snapshot of how the dispute was presented to the Court, the question presented in Shelby County v. Holder (No. 12-96) describes the arguments about Congress’s authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and the relationship to the Tenth Amendment and Article IV.
The Supreme Court oral argument record shows how the preclearance issue was discussed
The official transcript for the Feb. 27, 2013 argument reflects that the dispute centered on Section 5’s “preclearance obligation” and its connection to the Section 4(b) coverage formula.
The ABA House of Delegates addressed voting rights at the same meeting
Separately from Clinton’s award presentation, the ABA House of Delegates adopted multiple policy resolutions at the Annual Meeting, including a voting rights policy that referenced Shelby County v. Holder and discussed legislative options aimed at preserving and protecting voting rights.
The federal and state layers of voting rules often intersect in public debates
Coverage of Clinton’s speech described her as pointing to developments in several states, while also urging attention to federal protections associated with the Voting Rights Act and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it.
In public discussions like these, federal law, Supreme Court decisions, state election administration, and local practices can all become part of the same conversation, even though each part of the system can operate differently.
Disagreements about voting rules often end up in courts and legislatures
Reporting on the 2013 remarks described Clinton as urging Congress to reconsider the Voting Rights Act after Shelby County v. Holder, while also describing how disputes over election rules can raise questions about fairness, access, and discrimination.
When election-law issues are contested, the public record often includes a mix of sources, such as court filings, judicial opinions, policy statements by professional organizations, and news reporting that quotes key public figures.
Some common points of confusion come from legal terms that sound similar
Terms like “coverage formula,” “preclearance,” and “sections” of a statute can be easy to mix up because they sound technical, and public speeches often summarize them in plain language.
In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court record itself shows that “Section 5” and “Section 4(b)” were central parts of the dispute, which can help readers map political talking points back to the underlying legal framework.
