Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

6 

SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

of  VRA-occasioned  increases  in  black  voting.    Whatever 
the  device  employed,  this  Court  has  long  recognized  that
vote  dilution,  when  adopted  with  a  discriminatory  pur­
pose, cuts down the right to vote as certainly as denial of 
access to the ballot.  Shaw, 509 U. S., at 640–641; Allen v. 
State Bd. of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 569 (1969); Reynolds 
v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964).  See also H. R. Rep. No.
109–478,  p. 6  (2006)  (although  “[d]iscrimination  today  is
more  subtle  than  the  visible  methods  used  in  1965,”  “the 
effect  and  results  are  the  same,  namely  a  diminishing  of 
the minority community’s ability to fully participate in the 
electoral process and to elect their preferred candidates”). 
In  response  to  evidence  of  these  substituted  barriers,
Congress reauthorized the VRA for five years in 1970, for
seven years in 1975, and for 25 years in 1982.  Ante, at 4–5. 
Each  time,  this  Court  upheld  the  reauthorization  as  a
valid  exercise  of  congressional  power.    Ante,  at  5.    As  the 
1982 reauthorization approached its 2007 expiration date, 
Congress  again  considered  whether  the  VRA’s  preclear­
ance mechanism remained an appropriate response to the
problem of voting discrimination in covered jurisdictions. 
Congress did not take this task lightly.  Quite the oppo­
site.  The  109th  Congress  that  took  responsibility  for  the
renewal  started  early  and  conscientiously. 
In  October 
2005,  the  House  began  extensive  hearings,  which  contin­
ued  into  November  and  resumed  in  March  2006.  S. Rep. 
No.  109–295,  p.  2  (2006).    In  April  2006,  the  Senate  fol­
lowed suit, with hearings of its own.  Ibid.  In May 2006,
the  bills  that  became  the  VRA’s  reauthorization  were 
introduced in both Houses.  Ibid.  The House held further 
hearings  of  considerable  length,  as  did  the  Senate,  which 
continued to hold hearings into June and July.  H. R. Rep. 
109–478,  at  5;  S. Rep.  109–295,  at  3–4.    In  mid-July,  the 
House  considered  and  rejected  four  amendments,  then
passed  the  reauthorization  by  a  vote  of  390  yeas  to  33 
nays.  152 Cong. Rec. H5207 (July 13, 2006); Persily, The