Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 53.0

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

9 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

same [effects], namely a diminishing of the minority com-
munity’s ability to fully participate in the electoral process.”  
H. R.  Rep.  No.  109–478,  p. 6  (2006).    Congress  thus  reau-
thorized the preclearance scheme for 25 years. 
  But this Court took a different view.  Finding that “[o]ur 
country has changed,” the Court saw only limited instances 
of  voting  discrimination—and  so  no  further  need  for  pre-
clearance.  Shelby County, 570 U. S., at 547–549, 557.  Dis-
placing  Congress’s  contrary  judgment,  the  Court  struck 
down the coverage formula essential to the statute’s opera-
tion.  The legal analysis offered was perplexing: The Court 
based  its  decision  on  a  “principle  of  equal  [state]  sover-
eignty” that a prior decision of ours had rejected—and that 
has  not  made  an  appearance  since.    Id.,  at  544  (majority 
opinion);  see  id.,  at  587–588  (Ginsburg,  J.,  dissenting).  
Worse  yet  was  the  Court’s  blithe  confidence  in  assessing 
what  was  needed  and  what  was  not.    “[T]hings  have 
changed  dramatically,”  the  Court  reiterated,  id.,  at  547: 
The statute that was once a necessity had become an impo-
sition.  But how did the majority know there was nothing 
more for Section 5 to do—that the (undoubted) changes in 
the country went so far as to make the provision unneces-
sary?    It didn’t,  as  Justice  Ginsburg  explained  in  dissent.  
The  majority’s  faith  that  discrimination  was  almost  gone 
derived, at least in part, from the success of Section 5—from 
its record of blocking discriminatory voting schemes.  Dis-
carding  Section  5  because  those  schemes  had  diminished 
was “like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm be-
cause you are not getting wet.”  Id., at 590. 
  The rashness of the act soon became evident.  Once Sec-
tion 5’s strictures came off, States and localities put in place 
new restrictive voting laws, with foreseeably adverse effects 
on minority voters.  On the very day Shelby County issued, 
Texas  announced  that  it  would  implement  a  strict  voter-
identification requirement that had failed to clear Section 
5.    See  Elmendorf  &  Spencer,  Administering  Section  2  of