Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 51

20 

SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

Judiciary,  109th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  pp.  964–1124  (2005) 
(hereinafter  Impact  and  Effectiveness).    Because  the  pri­
vate  right  of  action  authorized  by  §2  of  the  VRA  applies 
nationwide,  a  comparison  of  §2  lawsuits  in  covered  and 
noncovered jurisdictions provides an appropriate yardstick
for measuring differences between covered and noncovered 
jurisdictions.  If differences in the risk of voting discrimi­
nation  between  covered  and  noncovered  jurisdictions  had 
disappeared,  one  would  expect  that  the  rate  of  successful 
§2 lawsuits would be roughly the same in both areas.6  The 
study’s  findings,  however,  indicated  that  racial  discrimi­
nation in voting remains “concentrated in the jurisdictions
singled out for preclearance.”  Northwest Austin, 557 U. S., 
at 203. 

Although  covered  jurisdictions  account  for  less  than  25
percent  of  the  country’s  population,  the  Katz  study  re­
vealed  that  they  accounted  for  56  percent  of  successful 
§2  litigation  since  1982.    Impact  and  Effectiveness  974. 
Controlling for population, there were nearly four times as 
many successful §2 cases in covered jurisdictions as there 
were  in  noncovered  jurisdictions.    679  F. 3d,  at  874.    The 
Katz study further found that §2 lawsuits are more likely 
to  succeed  when  they  are  filed  in  covered  jurisdictions
than  in  noncovered  jurisdictions.    Impact  and  Effective­
ness  974.  From  these  findings—ignored  by  the  Court—
Congress reasonably concluded  that the coverage formula 
continues to identify the jurisdictions of greatest concern.

The  evidence  before  Congress,  furthermore,  indicated
that  voting  in  the  covered  jurisdictions  was  more  racially
polarized  than  elsewhere  in  the  country.  H. R.  Rep.  No. 
109–478,  at  34–35.  While  racially  polarized  voting  alone 
—————— 

6 Because preclearance occurs only in covered jurisdictions and can be
expected to stop the most obviously objectionable measures, one would 
expect  a  lower  rate  of  successful  §2  lawsuits  in  those  jurisdictions  if
the risk of voting discrimination there were the same as elsewhere in the 
country.