Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 29

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

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring

 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED 

STATES 

_________________ 

No. 12–96 
_________________ 

SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, PETITIONER v. ERIC 
H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
 

[June 25, 2013] 

JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring. 
I join the Court’s opinion in full but write separately to 
explain  that  I  would  find  §5  of  the  Voting  Rights  Act  un-
constitutional  as  well.    The  Court’s  opinion  sets  forth  the 
reasons. 

“The Voting Rights Act of 1965 employed extraordinary
measures to address an extraordinary problem.”  Ante, at 
1.  In  the  face  of  “unremitting  and  ingenious  defiance”  of
citizens’  constitutionally  protected  right  to  vote,  §5  was 
necessary  to  give  effect  to  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  in
particular regions of the country.  South Carolina v. Katzen-
bach,  383  U. S.  301,  309  (1966).    Though  §5’s  preclear-
ance requirement represented a “shar[p] depart[ure]” from
“basic  principles”  of  federalism  and  the  equal  sovereignty
of the States, ante, at 9, 11, the Court upheld the measure
against  early  constitutional  challenges  because  it  was
necessary  at  the  time  to  address  “voting  discrimination
where  it  persist[ed]  on  a  pervasive  scale.”  Katzenbach, 
supra, at 308. 

Today,  our  Nation  has  changed.  “[T]he  conditions  that
originally justified [§5] no longer characterize voting in the 
covered jurisdictions.”  Ante, at 2.  As the Court explains:
“ ‘[V]oter  turnout  and  registration  rates  now  approach 
parity.  Blatantly  discriminatory  evasions  of  federal  de-