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

8 

SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER 

Opinion of the Court 

gress’s  conclusion  that  §2  litigation  remained  inadequate
in the covered jurisdictions to protect the rights of minori-
ty  voters,  and  that  §5  was  therefore  still  necessary.    Id., 
at 873. 

Turning to §4, the D. C. Circuit noted that the evidence 
for singling out the covered jurisdictions was “less robust”
and  that  the  issue  presented  “a  close  question.”    Id.,  at 
879.  But the court looked to data comparing the number
of successful §2 suits in the different parts of the country.
Coupling that evidence with the deterrent effect of §5, the 
court  concluded  that  the  statute  continued  “to  single  out 
the jurisdictions in which discrimination is concentrated,”
and  thus  held  that  the  coverage  formula  passed  constitu-
tional muster.  Id., at 883. 

Judge  Williams  dissented.  He  found  “no  positive  cor-
relation between inclusion in §4(b)’s coverage formula and 
low  black  registration  or  turnout.”    Id.,  at  891.  Rather, 
to  the  extent  there  was  any  correlation,  it  actually  went
the  other  way:  “condemnation  under  §4(b)  is  a  marker  of 
higher  black  registration  and  turnout.”    Ibid.  (emphasis
added).  Judge  Williams  also  found  that  “[c]overed  juris-
dictions  have  far  more  black  officeholders  as  a  proportion
of  the  black  population  than  do  uncovered  ones.”    Id.,  at 
892.  As to the evidence of successful §2 suits, Judge Wil-
liams  disaggregated  the  reported  cases  by  State,  and
concluded that “[t]he five worst uncovered jurisdictions . . . 
have  worse  records  than  eight  of  the  covered  jurisdic-
tions.”  Id., at 897.  He also noted that two  covered juris-
dictions—Arizona and Alaska—had not had any successful 
reported §2 suit brought against them during the entire 24
years  covered  by  the  data.  Ibid.   Judge  Williams  would 
have  held  the  coverage  formula  of  §4(b)  “irrational”  and 
unconstitutional.  Id., at 885. 

We granted certiorari.  568 U. S. ___ (2012).