Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 44

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

13 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

A 
I  begin  with  the  evidence  on  which  Congress  based  its
decision to continue the preclearance remedy.  The surest 
way to evaluate whether that remedy remains in order is 
to see if preclearance is still effectively preventing discrim­
inatory  changes  to  voting  laws.    See  City  of  Rome,  446 
U. S., at 181 (identifying “information on the number and 
types  of  submissions  made  by  covered  jurisdictions  and 
the  number  and  nature  of  objections  interposed  by  the
Attorney  General”  as  a  primary  basis  for  upholding  the 
1975  reauthorization).  On  that  score,  the  record  before 
Congress  was  huge.  In  fact,  Congress  found  there  were 
more  DOJ  objections  between  1982  and  2004  (626)  than
there  were  between  1965  and  the  1982  reauthorization 
(490).  1  Voting  Rights  Act:  Evidence  of  Continued  Need, 
Hearing  before  the  Subcommittee  on  the  Constitution  of
the  House  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  109th  Cong.,  2d
Sess.,  p.  172  (2006)  (hereinafter  Evidence  of  Continued 
Need).

All told, between 1982 and 2006, DOJ objections blocked 
over 700 voting changes based on a determination that the 
changes  were  discriminatory.  H. R.  Rep.  No.  109–478,  at 
21.  Congress  found  that  the  majority  of  DOJ  objections
included  findings  of  discriminatory  intent,  see  679  F. 3d, 
at 867, and that the changes blocked by preclearance were 
“calculated  decisions  to  keep  minority  voters  from  fully
participating in the political process.”  H. R. Rep. 109–478, 
at 21.  On top of that, over the same time period the DOJ 
and private plaintiffs succeeded in more than 100 actions
to  enforce  the  §5  preclearance  requirements.  1  Evidence 
of Continued Need 186, 250. 

In addition to blocking proposed voting changes through
preclearance,  DOJ  may  request  more  information  from  a 
jurisdiction  proposing  a  change.  In  turn,  the  jurisdiction
may modify or withdraw the proposed change.  The num­
ber  of  such  modifications  or  withdrawals  provides  an