Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 43

12 

SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

catch-22.  If the statute was working, there would be less
evidence of discrimination, so opponents might argue that
Congress  should  not  be  allowed  to  renew  the  statute.    In 
contrast,  if  the  statute  was  not  working,  there  would  be 
plenty  of  evidence  of  discrimination,  but  scant  reason  to
renew a failed regulatory regime.  See Persily 193–194.

This  is  not  to  suggest  that  congressional  power  in  this
area is limitless.  It is this Court’s responsibility to ensure 
that Congress has used appropriate means.  The question
meet  for  judicial  review  is  whether  the  chosen  means  are
“adapted to carry out the objects the amendments have in
view.”  Ex  parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346 (1880).  The 
Court’s role, then, is not to substitute its judgment for that
of  Congress,  but  to  determine  whether  the  legislative
record  sufficed  to  show  that  “Congress  could  rationally
have  determined  that  [its  chosen]  provisions  were  appro­
priate methods.”  City of Rome, 446 U. S., at 176–177. 

In  summary,  the  Constitution  vests  broad  power  in
Congress to protect the right to vote, and in particular to
combat  racial  discrimination  in  voting.  This  Court  has 
repeatedly  reaffirmed  Congress’  prerogative  to  use  any 
rational means in exercise of its power in this area.  And 
both  precedent  and  logic  dictate  that  the  rational-means 
test  should  be  easier  to  satisfy,  and  the  burden  on  the
statute’s  challenger  should  be  higher,  when  what  is  at 
issue is the reauthorization of a remedy that the Court has 
previously  affirmed,  and  that  Congress  found,  from  con­
temporary evidence, to be working to advance the legisla­
ture’s legitimate objective. 

III 

The 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act fully 
satisfies  the  standard  stated  in  McCulloch,  4  Wheat.,  at 
421:  Congress  may  choose  any  means  “appropriate”  and 
“plainly adapted to” a legitimate constitutional end.  As we 
shall see, it is implausible to suggest otherwise.