Facts
- The Voting Rights Act of 1965 required certain jurisdictions to obtain federal approval (“preclearance”) before implementing changes to voting laws under § 5.
- Section 4(b) supplied the coverage formula identifying jurisdictions subject to § 5, relying primarily on use of voting “tests or devices” and low registration or turnout in the 1960s and early 1970s.
- Congress reauthorized §§ 4(b) and 5 multiple times, most recently in 2006 for 25 years, while leaving § 4(b)’s coverage formula unchanged.
- Shelby County, Alabama (a covered jurisdiction), sued seeking a declaration that §§ 4(b) and 5 were unconstitutional and an injunction against their enforcement.
- The district court and the D.C. Circuit upheld the reauthorization and the continued use of the § 4(b) formula.
- The Supreme Court granted review and addressed whether the coverage formula remained constitutional given contemporary voting conditions.
Issues
- Whether Congress exceeded its enforcement authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments by reauthorizing § 5 preclearance using § 4(b)’s decades-old coverage formula.
- Whether § 4(b)’s differential treatment of states and jurisdictions remains justified by “current conditions,” consistent with principles of federalism and the equal sovereignty of the states.
- Whether invalidating § 4(b) leaves § 5 enforceable in practice absent a new coverage formula.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts.
- The Court held § 4(b)’s coverage formula unconstitutional because it relied on outdated data and no longer reflected current voting conditions.
- The Court did not strike down § 5, but because § 5’s operation depends on § 4(b), no jurisdiction remained subject to preclearance unless Congress enacted a new coverage formula.
- Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment and would have also held § 5 unconstitutional.
- Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, dissented, arguing Congress had compiled a sufficient record of continuing discrimination to justify reauthorization and the existing coverage scheme.
Legal Principles
- Federal legislation that imposes extraordinary federal oversight on state election regulation must be justified by current needs and supported by criteria that reflect present-day conditions.
- Differential treatment of states implicates a principle of equal sovereignty; departures from ordinary federalism require a contemporaneous, targeted justification.
- A coverage formula for preclearance cannot rest on decades-old conditions without a logical relationship to current circumstances.
- Congress retains authority to enforce the Reconstruction Amendments, but its enforcement measures must be appropriately grounded in present conditions when they impose substantial federal intrusions on state authority.
Conclusion
The Court invalidated the Voting Rights Act’s § 4(b) coverage formula as obsolete, effectively disabling § 5’s preclearance mechanism unless Congress adopts a new, constitutionally sufficient method for identifying jurisdictions subject to preclearance.