Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 65.0

34 

SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

identifies  the  jurisdictions  with  the  worst  conditions  of
voting discrimination, that is of no moment, as the Court 
sees  it.  Congress,  the  Court  decrees,  must  “star[t]  from 
scratch.”  Ante, at 23.  I do not see why that should be so.

Congress’  chore  was  different  in  1965  than  it  was  in 
2006.  In  1965,  there  were  a  “small  number  of  States  . . . 
which  in  most  instances  were  familiar  to  Congress  by 
name,” on which Congress fixed its attention.  Katzenbach, 
383 U. S., at 328.  In drafting the coverage formula, “Con­
gress  began  work  with  reliable  evidence  of  actual  voting
discrimination in a great majority of the States” it sought 
to target.  Id., at 329.  “The formula [Congress] eventually 
evolved to describe these areas” also captured a few States
that had not been the subject of congressional factfinding. 
Ibid.    Nevertheless,  the  Court  upheld  the  formula  in  its
entirety, finding it fair “to infer a significant danger of the
evil” in all places the formula covered.  Ibid. 

The  situation  Congress  faced  in  2006,  when  it  took  up 
reauthorization of the coverage formula, was not the same. 
By  then,  the  formula  had  been  in  effect  for  many  years,
and  all  of  the  jurisdictions  covered  by  it  were  “familiar 
to  Congress  by  name.”    Id.,  at  328.    The  question  before
Congress:  Was  there  still  a  sufficient  basis  to  support
continued  application  of  the  preclearance  remedy  in  each
of those already-identified places?  There was at that point
no  chance  that  the  formula  might  inadvertently  sweep  in
new  areas  that  were  not  the  subject  of  congressional 
findings.  And  Congress  could  determine  from  the  record 
whether  the  jurisdictions  captured  by  the  coverage  for­
mula still belonged under the preclearance regime.  If they
did, there was no need to alter the formula.  That is why
the  Court,  in  addressing  prior  reauthorizations  of  the
VRA,  did  not  question  the  continuing  “relevance”  of  the 
formula. 

Consider once again the components of the record before
Congress  in  2006.  The  coverage  provision  identified  a