Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 66

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

35 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

known list of places with an undisputed history of serious
problems  with  racial  discrimination  in  voting.    Recent 
evidence  relating  to  Alabama  and  its  counties  was  there 
for  all  to  see.  Multiple  Supreme  Court  decisions  had
upheld  the  coverage  provision,  most  recently  in  1999.
There  was  extensive  evidence  that,  due  to  the  preclear­
ance  mechanism,  conditions  in  the  covered  jurisdictions
had  notably  improved.  And  there  was  evidence  that  pre­
clearance  was  still  having  a  substantial  real-world  effect, 
having stopped hundreds of discriminatory voting changes
in the covered jurisdictions since the last reauthorization. 
In addition, there was evidence that racial polarization in 
voting was higher in covered jurisdictions than elsewhere,
increasing  the  vulnerability  of  minority  citizens  in  those 
jurisdictions.  And  countless  witnesses,  reports,  and  case
studies  documented  continuing  problems  with  voting  dis­
In  light  of  this  rec­
crimination  in  those  jurisdictions. 
ord,  Congress  had  more  than  a  reasonable  basis  to 
conclude that the existing coverage formula was not out of
sync with conditions on the ground in covered areas.  And 
certainly  Shelby  County  was  no  candidate  for  release 
through the mechanism Congress provided.  See supra, at 
22–23, 26–28. 

The  Court  holds  §4(b)  invalid  on  the  ground  that  it  is
“irrational  to  base  coverage  on  the  use  of  voting  tests  40
years  ago,  when  such  tests  have  been  illegal  since  that 
time.”  Ante,  at  23.  But  the  Court  disregards  what  Con­
gress set about to do in enacting the VRA.  That extraor­
dinary  legislation  scarcely  stopped  at  the  particular  tests
and  devices  that  happened  to  exist  in  1965.    The  grand 
aim of the Act is to secure to all in our polity equal citizen­
ship  stature,  a  voice  in  our  democracy  undiluted  by  race. 
As  the  record  for  the  2006  reauthorization  makes  abun­
dantly clear, second-generation barriers to minority voting
rights  have  emerged  in  the  covered  jurisdictions  as  at­
tempted  substitutes  for  the  first-generation  barriers  that