Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

16 

SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER 

Opinion of the Court 

and  used  tear  gas  against  hundreds  marching  in  sup- 
port of African-American enfranchisement.  See Northwest 
Austin,  supra,  at  220,  n. 3  (THOMAS,  J.,  concurring  in
judgment  in  part  and dissenting  in  part).    Today  both  of
those  towns  are  governed  by  African-American  mayors. 
Problems  remain  in  these  States  and  others,  but  there  is 
no denying that, due to the Voting Rights Act, our Nation
has made great strides.

Yet  the  Act  has  not  eased  the  restrictions  in  §5  or  nar-
rowed the scope of the coverage formula in §4(b) along the 
way.  Those  extraordinary  and  unprecedented  features
were  reauthorized—as  if  nothing  had  changed.    In  fact, 
the  Act’s  unusual  remedies  have  grown  even  stronger. 
When Congress reauthorized the Act in 2006, it did so for 
another 25 years on top of the previous 40—a far cry from
the  initial  five-year  period.    See  42  U. S. C.  §1973b(a)(8). 
Congress  also  expanded  the  prohibitions  in  §5.    We  had 
previously interpreted §5 to prohibit only those redistrict-
ing plans that would have the purpose or effect of worsen-
ing  the  position  of  minority  groups.    See  Bossier  II,  528 
U. S.,  at  324,  335–336.    In  2006,  Congress  amended  §5 
to  prohibit  laws  that  could  have  favored  such  groups  but 
did  not  do  so  because  of  a  discriminatory  purpose,  see  42
U. S. C.  §1973c(c),  even  though  we  had  stated  that  such
broadening of §5 coverage would “exacerbate the substan-
tial  federalism  costs  that  the  preclearance  procedure
already  exacts,  perhaps  to  the  extent  of  raising  concerns
about  §5’s  constitutionality,”  Bossier  II,  supra,  at  336 
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).  In addi-
tion,  Congress  expanded  §5  to  prohibit  any  voting  law 
“that has the purpose of or will have the effect of diminish-
ing  the  ability  of  any  citizens  of  the  United  States,”  on 
account  of  race,  color,  or  language  minority  status,  “to
elect  their  preferred  candidates  of  choice.”    §1973c(b).  In 
light of those two amendments, the bar that covered juris-
dictions must clear has been raised even as the conditions