Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 67.0

36 

SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

originally  triggered  preclearance  in  those  jurisdictions. 
See supra, at 5–6, 8, 15–17. 

The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure 
to  grasp  why  the  VRA  has  proven  effective.    The  Court 
appears  to  believe  that  the  VRA’s  success  in  eliminating
the  specific  devices  extant  in  1965  means  that  preclear­
ance  is  no  longer  needed.    Ante,  at  21–22,  23–24.    With 
that  belief,  and  the  argument  derived  from  it,  history
repeats  itself.  The  same  assumption—that  the  problem
could be solved when particular methods of voting discrim­
ination  are  identified  and  eliminated—was  indulged  and 
proved  wrong  repeatedly  prior  to  the  VRA’s  enactment. 
Unlike prior statutes, which singled out particular tests or
devices,  the  VRA  is  grounded  in  Congress’  recognition  of 
the  “variety  and  persistence”  of  measures  designed  to 
impair  minority  voting  rights.    Katzenbach,  383  U. S.,  at 
311; supra, at 2.  In truth, the evolution of voting discrim­
ination  into  more  subtle  second-generation  barriers  is 
powerful  evidence  that  a  remedy  as  effective  as  preclear­
ance  remains  vital  to  protect  minority  voting  rights  and
prevent backsliding.

Beyond question, the VRA is no ordinary legislation.  It 
is extraordinary because Congress embarked on a mission 
long  delayed  and  of  extraordinary  importance:  to  realize
the  purpose  and  promise  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment. 
For  a  half  century,  a  concerted  effort  has  been  made  to 
end racial discrimination in voting.  Thanks to the Voting
Rights Act, progress once the subject of a dream has been 
achieved and continues to be made. 

The  record  supporting  the  2006  reauthorization  of
the  VRA  is  also  extraordinary.    It  was  described  by  the
Chairman  of  the  House  Judiciary  Committee  as  “one  of 
the  most  extensive  considerations  of  any  piece  of  legisla­
tion that the United States Congress has dealt with in the
27½  years”  he  had  served  in  the  House.    152  Cong.  Rec. 
H5143 (July 13, 2006) (statement of Rep. Sensenbrenner).