Certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota also had to follow the same rules on pre-approval, covering everything from major efforts like Voter ID laws to simple changes in the location of polling places.
Here are the comments from Attorney General Holder:
This is the Department's first action to protect voting rights following the Shelby County decision, but it will not be our last. Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act in light of the Court's ruling, we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the law's remaining sections to ensure that the voting rights of all American citizens are protected. My colleagues and I are determined to use every tool at our disposal to stand against discrimination wherever it is found. But let me be very clear: these remaining tools are no substitute for legislation that must fill the void left by the Supreme Court's decision. This issue transcends partisanship, and we must work together. We cannot allow the slow unraveling of the progress that so many, throughout history, have sacrificed so much to achieve. And, in our broader efforts, we will continue to look far beyond America's ballot boxes – to our schools, military bases, and border areas; our immigrant communities, our criminal justice system, and even our workplaces – in order to advance the fight for equality and against injustice.
Holder is trying to use the "bail-in" provision of Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, which allows the feds to force certain jurisdictions to submit their election law changes for pre-approval.
For those asking, "Didn't the Supreme Court strike down pre-clearance specifically back in June?" - the Court did strike down the formula for determining which jurisdictions should have to submit their election law changes for approval by the feds - but not the process.
Many though argue - since Congress seems unlikely to re-write the formula - that it basically does get rid of the pre-clearance provisions.