Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 16

12 

SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER 

Opinion of the Court 

bach,  383  U. S.,  at  308,  315,  337.    We  recognized  that  it
“may  have  been  an  uncommon  exercise  of  congressional 
power,”  but  concluded  that  “legislative  measures  not  oth-
erwise appropriate” could be justified by “exceptional con-
ditions.”  Id.,  at  334.    We  have  since  noted  that  the  Act 
“authorizes  federal  intrusion  into  sensitive  areas  of  state 
and  local  policymaking,”  Lopez,  525  U. S.,  at  282,  and 
represents  an  “extraordinary  departure  from  the  tradi-
tional  course  of  relations  between  the  States  and  the 
Federal Government,” Presley v. Etowah County Comm’n, 
502  U. S.  491,  500–501  (1992).    As  we  reiterated  in 
Northwest  Austin,  the  Act  constitutes  “extraordinary
legislation  otherwise  unfamiliar  to  our  federal  system.” 
557 U. S., at 211. 

B 
In  1966,  we  found  these  departures  from  the  basic  fea-
tures of our system of government justified.  The “blight of 
racial discrimination in voting” had “infected the electoral
process  in  parts  of  our  country  for  nearly  a  century.” 
Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 308.  Several States had enacted 
a  variety  of  requirements  and  tests  “specifically  designed
to  prevent”  African-Americans  from  voting.  Id.,  at  310. 
Case-by-case  litigation  had  proved  inadequate  to  prevent 
such  racial  discrimination  in  voting,  in  part  because 
States  “merely  switched  to  discriminatory  devices  not
covered  by  the  federal  decrees,”  “enacted  difficult  new 
tests,” or simply “defied and evaded court orders.”  Id., at 
314.  Shortly  before  enactment  of  the  Voting  Rights  Act,
only 19.4 percent of African-Americans of voting age were 
registered to vote in Alabama, only 31.8 percent in Louisi-
ana,  and  only  6.4  percent  in  Mississippi. 
Id.,  at  313. 
Those  figures  were  roughly  50  percentage  points  or  more 
below the figures for whites.  Ibid. 

In  short,  we  concluded  that  “[u]nder  the  compulsion  of
these  unique  circumstances,  Congress  responded  in  a