Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 11

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

Blatantly  discriminatory  evasions  of  federal  decrees  are 
rare.  And  minority  candidates  hold  office  at  unprece-
dented levels.”  Id., at 202.  Finally, we questioned whether 
the problems that §5 meant to address were still “concen-
trated  in  the  jurisdictions  singled  out  for  preclearance.” 
Id., at 203. 

Eight  Members  of  the  Court  subscribed  to  these  views, 
and  the  remaining  Member  would  have  held  the  Act  un-
constitutional.  Ultimately, however, the Court’s construc-
tion  of  the  bailout  provision  left  the  constitutional  issues
for another day. 

B 
Shelby County is located in Alabama, a covered jurisdic-
tion.  It  has  not  sought  bailout,  as  the  Attorney  General
has  recently  objected  to  voting  changes  proposed  from
within  the  county.  See  App.  87a–92a.  Instead,  in  2010, 
the  county  sued  the  Attorney  General  in  Federal  District
Court  in  Washington,  D. C.,  seeking  a  declaratory  judg-
ment that sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act are
facially  unconstitutional,  as  well  as  a  permanent  injunc-
tion  against  their  enforcement.    The  District  Court  ruled 
against  the  county  and  upheld  the  Act.    811  F. Supp.  2d 
424, 508 (2011).  The court found that the evidence before 
Congress in 2006 was sufficient to justify reauthorizing §5
and continuing the §4(b) coverage formula.

The Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit affirmed.  In 
assessing  §5,  the  D. C.  Circuit  considered  six  primary 
categories  of  evidence:  Attorney  General  objections  to
voting  changes,  Attorney  General  requests  for  more  in-
formation regarding voting changes, successful §2 suits in
covered  jurisdictions,  the  dispatching  of  federal  observers 
to  monitor  elections  in  covered  jurisdictions,  §5  preclear-
ance  suits  involving  covered  jurisdictions,  and  the  deter-
rent effect of §5.  See 679 F. 3d 848, 862–863 (2012).  After 
extensive  analysis  of  the  record,  the  court  accepted  Con-