Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 27

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

23 

Opinion of the Court 

that  the  Act  was  “uncommon”  and  “not  otherwise  appro-
priate,”  but  was  justified  by  “exceptional”  and  “unique” 
conditions.  383  U. S.,  at  334,  335.    Multiple  decisions
since  have  reaffirmed  the  Act’s  “extraordinary”  nature. 
See, e.g., Northwest Austin, supra, at 211.  Yet the dissent 
goes  so  far  as  to  suggest  instead  that  the  preclearance
requirement and disparate treatment of the States should 
be upheld into the future “unless there [is] no or almost no
evidence of unconstitutional action by States.”  Post, at 33. 
In  other  ways  as  well,  the  dissent  analyzes  the  ques-
tion presented as if our decision in Northwest Austin never 
happened.  For  example,  the  dissent  refuses  to  con- 
sider the principle of equal sovereignty, despite Northwest 
Austin’s  emphasis  on  its  significance.    Northwest  Austin 
also  emphasized  the  “dramatic”  progress  since  1965,  557 
U. S.,  at  201,  but  the  dissent  describes  current  levels  of 
discrimination  as  “flagrant,”  “widespread,”  and  “perva-
sive,”  post,  at  7,  17  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).
Despite  the  fact  that  Northwest  Austin  requires  an  Act’s 
“disparate geographic coverage” to be “sufficiently related”
to  its  targeted  problems,  557  U. S.,  at  203,  the  dissent 
maintains  that  an  Act’s  limited  coverage  actually  eases
Congress’s  burdens,  and  suggests  that  a  fortuitous  rela-
tionship should suffice.  Although Northwest Austin stated 
definitively  that  “current  burdens”  must  be  justified  by
“current needs,” ibid., the dissent argues that the coverage 
formula can be justified by history, and that the required 
showing can be weaker on reenactment than when the law 
was first passed.    

There  is  no  valid  reason  to  insulate  the  coverage  for-
mula from review merely because it was previously enacted 
40  years  ago.  If  Congress  had  started  from  scratch  in
2006, it plainly could not have enacted the present cover-
age formula.  It would have been irrational for Congress to
distinguish  between  States  in  such  a  fundamental  way 
based  on  40-year-old  data,  when  today’s  statistics  tell  an