Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 45.0

14 

SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

indication  of  how  many  discriminatory  proposals  are
deterred  without  need  for  formal  objection.    Congress
received  evidence  that  more  than  800  proposed  changes 
were  altered  or  withdrawn  since  the  last  reauthorization 
in 1982.  H. R. Rep. No. 109–478, at 40–41.4  Congress also
received empirical studies finding that DOJ’s requests for 
more information had a significant effect on the degree to
which  covered  jurisdictions  “compl[ied]  with  their  obliga­
tio[n]”  to  protect  minority  voting  rights.    2  Evidence  of 
Continued Need 2555. 

Congress also received evidence that litigation under §2
of the VRA was an inadequate substitute for preclearance 
in  the  covered  jurisdictions.  Litigation  occurs  only  after
the fact, when the illegal voting scheme has already been 
put in place and individuals have been elected pursuant to
it, thereby gaining the advantages of incumbency.  1 Evi­
dence of Continued Need 97.  An illegal scheme might be
in place for several election cycles before a §2 plaintiff can 
gather sufficient evidence to challenge it.  1 Voting Rights 
Act:  Section  5  of  the  Act—History,  Scope,  and  Purpose: 
Hearing  before  the  Subcommittee  on  the  Constitution  of
the  House  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  109th  Cong.,  1st
Sess.,  p.  92  (2005)  (hereinafter  Section  5  Hearing).    And 
litigation  places  a  heavy  financial  burden  on  minority 
voters.  See  id.,  at  84.    Congress  also  received  evidence 

—————— 

4 This  number  includes  only  changes  actually  proposed.    Congress 
also  received  evidence  that  many  covered  jurisdictions  engaged  in  an
“informal consultation process” with DOJ before formally submitting a
proposal,  so  that  the  deterrent  effect  of  preclearance  was  far  broader
than  the  formal  submissions  alone  suggest.    The  Continuing  Need  for 
Section  5  Pre-Clearance:  Hearing  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary,  109th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  pp.  53–54  (2006).    All  agree  that  an 
unsupported  assertion  about  “deterrence”  would  not  be  sufficient  to 
justify keeping a remedy in place in perpetuity.  See ante, at 17.  But it 
was  certainly  reasonable  for  Congress  to  consider  the  testimony  of 
witnesses  who  had  worked  with  officials  in  covered  jurisdictions  and 
observed a real-world deterrent effect.