Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

6 

SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER 

Opinion of the Court 

581; see Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 528 U. S. 320, 
341 (2000) (Bossier II); Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U. S. 461, 
479  (2003).  Section  5  now  forbids  voting  changes  with
“any  discriminatory  purpose”  as  well  as  voting  changes
that  diminish  the  ability  of  citizens,  on  account  of  race,
color, or language minority status, “to elect their preferred 
candidates of choice.”  42 U. S. C. §§1973c(b)–(d). 

Shortly after this reauthorization, a Texas utility district 
brought  suit,  seeking  to  bail  out  from  the  Act’s  cover- 
age and, in the alternative, challenging the Act’s constitu-
tionality.  See Northwest Austin, 557 U. S., at 200–201.  A 
three-judge  District  Court  explained  that  only  a  State  or 
political subdivision was eligible to seek bailout under the 
statute,  and  concluded  that  the  utility  district  was  not  a
political subdivision, a term that encompassed only “coun-
ties, parishes, and voter-registering subunits.”  Northwest 
Austin  Municipal  Util.  Dist.  No.  One  v.  Mukasey,  573 
F. Supp.  2d  221,  232  (DC  2008).  The  District  Court  also 
rejected the constitutional challenge.  Id., at 283. 

We  reversed.  We  explained  that  “ ‘normally  the  Court 
will  not  decide  a  constitutional  question  if  there  is  some
other  ground  upon  which  to  dispose  of  the  case.’ ”    North-
west  Austin,  supra,  at  205  (quoting  Escambia  County  v. 
McMillan, 466 U. S. 48, 51 (1984) (per curiam)).  Conclud-
ing that “underlying constitutional concerns,” among other 
things, “compel[led] a broader reading of the bailout provi-
sion,” we construed the statute to allow the utility district 
to  seek  bailout.  Northwest  Austin,  557  U. S.,  at  207.  In 
doing so we expressed serious doubts about the Act’s con-
tinued constitutionality.

We  explained  that  §5  “imposes  substantial  federalism 
costs” and “differentiates between the States, despite our his-
toric tradition that all the States enjoy equal sovereignty.” 
Id.,  at  202,  203  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted). 
We  also  noted  that  “[t]hings  have  changed  in  the  South. 
Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity.