Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 53.0

22 

SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

have  been  charged  with  rigidity  had  it  afforded  covered
jurisdictions  no  way  out  or  ignored  jurisdictions  that
needed superintendence.  Congress, however, responded to 
this  concern.  Critical  components  of  the  congressional
design  are  the  statutory  provisions  allowing  jurisdictions 
to  “bail  out”  of  preclearance,  and  for  court-ordered  “bail 
ins.”  See  Northwest  Austin,  557  U. S.,  at  199.    The  VRA 
permits  a  jurisdiction  to  bail  out  by  showing  that  it  has 
complied  with  the  Act  for  ten  years,  and  has  engaged  in 
efforts  to  eliminate  intimidation  and  harassment  of  vot­
ers.  42 U. S. C. §1973b(a) (2006 ed. and Supp. V).  It also 
authorizes  a  court  to  subject  a  noncovered  jurisdiction  to 
federal  preclearance  upon  finding  that  violations  of  the
Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Amendments  have  occurred 
there.  §1973a(c) (2006 ed.). 

Congress  was  satisfied  that  the  VRA’s  bailout  mecha­
nism  provided  an  effective  means  of  adjusting  the  VRA’s
coverage  over  time.  H. R.  Rep.  No.  109–478,  at  25  (the 
success  of  bailout  “illustrates  that:  (1)  covered  status  is 
neither  permanent  nor  over-broad;  and  (2)  covered  status
has  been  and  continues  to  be  within  the  control  of  the 
jurisdiction such that those jurisdictions that have a genu­
inely  clean  record  and  want  to  terminate  coverage  have
the  ability  to  do  so”).    Nearly  200  jurisdictions  have  suc­
cessfully  bailed  out  of  the  preclearance  requirement,  and 
DOJ has consented to every bailout application filed by an 
eligible  jurisdiction  since  the  current  bailout  procedure 
became effective in 1984.  Brief for Federal Respondent 54.
The bail-in mechanism has also worked.  Several jurisdic­
tions  have  been  subject  to  federal  preclearance  by  court
orders, including the States of New Mexico and Arkansas. 
App. to Brief for Federal Respondent 1a–3a.

This  experience  exposes  the  inaccuracy  of  the  Court’s
portrayal  of  the  Act  as  static,  unchanged  since  1965. 
Congress designed the VRA to be a dynamic statute, capa­
ble  of  adjusting  to  changing  conditions.    True,  many  cov­