On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County, Alabama v Holder that section four of the federal Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Section four is the coverage formula for determining which jurisdictions must get permission before changing any voting law or practice. If Congress does nothing, then section five can’t be enforced either. Section five says that covered jurisdictions must get approval from the Justice Department before changing election laws and practices. The vote was 5-4. The decision is by Chief Justice John Roberts.
The dissent is by Justice Ruth Ginsburg. The dissent, at pages 24-28, has considerable detail about Alabama, and why that state’s past and recent record of voting rights behavior justifies continued existence of the entire federal Voting Rights Act.
Since it is not likely that Congress will re-write section four, the practical impact of today’s decision will be to increase the number of lawsuits. Section two of the act has not been limited in any way. It gives the U.S. Justice Department authority to sue any state or other jurisdiction that has an election law or practice that results in racial discrimination in voting. The number of such lawsuits will probably increase, because the new laws and practices that lead to such lawsuits will increase without the pre-clearance law in effect.