Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 52

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

21 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

does not signal a constitutional violation, it is a factor that
increases  the  vulnerability  of  racial  minorities  to  dis­
criminatory changes in voting law.  The reason is twofold. 
First, racial polarization means that racial minorities are 
at  risk  of  being  systematically  outvoted  and  having  their 
interests underrepresented in legislatures.  Second, “when 
political  preferences  fall  along  racial  lines,  the  natural 
inclinations  of  incumbents  and  ruling  parties  to  entrench
themselves have predictable racial effects.  Under circum­
stances of severe racial polarization, efforts to gain politi­
cal  advantage  translate  into  race-specific  disadvantages.”
Ansolabehere,  Persily,  &  Stewart,  Regional  Differences 
in  Racial  Polarization  in  the  2012  Presidential  Election: 
Implications  for  the  Constitutionality  of  Section  5  of  the 
Voting  Rights  Act,  126  Harv.  L. Rev.  Forum  205,  209
(2013).

In  other  words,  a  governing  political  coalition  has  an
incentive  to  prevent  changes  in  the  existing  balance  of 
voting power.  When voting is racially polarized, efforts by
the  ruling  party  to  pursue  that  incentive  “will  inevitably 
discriminate against a racial group.”  Ibid.  Just as build­
ings  in  California  have  a  greater  need  to  be  earthquake­
proofed,  places  where  there  is  greater  racial  polarization
in voting have a greater need for prophylactic measures to 
prevent  purposeful  race  discrimination.    This  point  was
understood  by  Congress  and  is  well  recognized  in  the 
academic  literature.  See  2006  Reauthorization  §2(b)(3), 
120  Stat.  577  (“The  continued  evidence  of  racially  polar­
ized  voting  in  each  of  the  jurisdictions  covered  by  the 
[preclearance  requirement]  demonstrates  that  racial  and
language  minorities  remain  politically  vulnerable”);  H. R.
Rep. No. 109–478, at 35; Davidson, The Recent Evolution
of  Voting  Rights  Law  Affecting  Racial  and  Language 
Minorities, in Quiet Revolution 21, 22. 

The  case  for  retaining  a  coverage  formula  that  met
needs on the ground was therefore solid.  Congress might