Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

permissibly  decisive  manner.”  Id.,  at  334,  335.  We  also 
noted  then  and  have  emphasized  since  that  this  extra-
ordinary  legislation  was  intended  to  be  temporary,  set  to
expire  after  five  years. 
Id.,  at  333;  Northwest  Austin, 
supra, at 199. 

At the time, the coverage formula—the means of linking
the  exercise  of  the  unprecedented  authority  with  the 
problem  that  warranted  it—made  sense.  We  found  that 
“Congress  chose  to  limit  its  attention  to  the  geographic
areas  where  immediate  action  seemed  necessary.”    Kat-
zenbach,  383  U. S.,  at  328.  The  areas  where  Congress
found  “evidence  of  actual  voting  discrimination”  shared
two characteristics: “the use of tests and devices for voter 
registration,  and  a  voting  rate  in  the  1964  presidential 
election  at  least  12  points  below  the  national  average.” 
Id.,  at  330.  We  explained  that  “[t]ests  and  devices  are
relevant  to  voting  discrimination  because  of  their  long 
history as a tool for perpetrating the evil; a low voting rate
is pertinent for the obvious reason that widespread disen-
franchisement must inevitably affect the number of actual
voters.”  Ibid.    We  therefore  concluded  that  “the  coverage
formula [was] rational in both practice and theory.”  Ibid. 
It accurately reflected those jurisdictions uniquely charac-
terized  by  voting  discrimination  “on  a  pervasive  scale,” 
linking coverage to the devices used to effectuate discrimi-
nation  and  to  the  resulting  disenfranchisement.    Id.,  at 
308.  The  formula  ensured  that  the  “stringent  remedies
[were]  aimed  at  areas  where  voting  discrimination  ha[d] 
been most flagrant.”  Id., at 315. 

C 
Nearly  50  years  later,  things  have  changed  dramati-
cally.  Shelby  County  contends  that  the  preclearance  re-
quirement, even without regard to its disparate coverage, 
is  now  unconstitutional.  Its  arguments  have  a  good  deal 
of force.  In the covered jurisdictions, “[v]oter turnout and