Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 30

2 

SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

crees are rare.  And minority candidates hold office at un-
precedented  levels.’ ”  Ante,  at  13–14  (quoting  Northwest 
Austin  Municipal  Util.  Dist.  No.  One  v.  Holder,  557  U. S. 
193, 202 (2009)).

In  spite  of  these  improvements,  however,  Congress 
increased the already significant burdens of §5.  Following
its  reenactment  in  2006,  the  Voting  Rights  Act  was
amended  to  “prohibit  more  conduct  than  before.”    Ante, 
at 5.  “Section 5 now forbids voting changes with ‘any dis-
criminatory purpose’ as well as voting changes that dimin-
ish  the  ability  of  citizens,  on  account  of  race,  color,  or
language  minority  status,  ‘to  elect  their  preferred  candi-
dates of choice.’ ”  Ante, at 6.  While the pre-2006 version of
the Act went well beyond protection guaranteed under the 
Constitution,  see  Reno  v.  Bossier  Parish  School  Bd.,  520 
U. S. 471, 480–482 (1997), it now goes even further.

It is, thus, quite fitting that the Court repeatedly points
out  that  this  legislation  is  “extraordinary”  and  “unprece-
dented”  and  recognizes  the  significant  constitutional
problems  created  by  Congress’  decision  to  raise  “the  bar
that covered jurisdictions must clear,” even as “the condi-
tions  justifying  that  requirement  have  dramatically  im-
proved.”  Ante,  at  16–17.    However  one  aggregates  the
data compiled by Congress, it cannot justify the consider-
able  burdens  created  by  §5.    As  the  Court  aptly  notes:
“[N]o  one  can  fairly  say  that  [the  record]  shows  anything
approaching  the  ‘pervasive,’  ‘flagrant,’  ‘widespread,’  and 
‘rampant’ discrimination that faced Congress in 1965, and 
that  clearly  distinguished  the  covered  jurisdictions  from
the rest of the Nation at that time.”  Ante, at 21.  Indeed, 
circumstances in the covered jurisdictions can no longer be
characterized as “exceptional” or “unique.”   “The extensive 
pattern of discrimination that led the Court to previously
uphold §5 as enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment no longer
exists.”  Northwest  Austin,  supra,  at  226  (THOMAS,  J., 
concurring  in  judgment  in  part  and  dissenting  in  part).