Is the formula used to determine which jurisdictions are subject to federal oversight of voting procedures under the Voting Rights Act constitutional?

Shelby County, Alabama initiated legal action seeking a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Act, originally passed in 1965, aimed to combat racial discrimination in voting practices, particularly in Southern states. Section 5 mandates that certain jurisdictions obtain federal preclearance before modifying their voting procedures. Section 4(b) outlines the formula determining which jurisdictions are subject to this preclearance requirement.

The Voting Rights Act has undergone several reauthorizations, with the most recent occurring in 2006 for a 25-year extension. Notably, these reauthorizations did not alter the coverage formula. Shelby County, located in Alabama, falls under the jurisdiction of the Act as a covered entity. The county's lawsuit directly challenges the continued application and constitutionality of these key provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

Shelby County initiated legal action by filing suit in the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. The District Court ruled against Shelby County, upholding the Act in question. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Shelby County appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the District Court's ruling, maintaining the Act's validity. Undeterred, Shelby County then escalated the case by appealing to the Supreme Court, seeking a final resolution to their challenge.

(Roberts, C.J.)

No. The formula used to determine which jurisdictions are subject to federal oversight of voting procedures under the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. The coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act violates the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among states without sufficient justification based on current conditions. This formula, which determines which states and localities are subject to federal preclearance of changes to voting laws, relies on data and practices from the 1960s and 1970s that no longer accurately reflect the present-day realities of voting rights in the covered jurisdictions. The significant progress made in minority voting rights since the Act's inception in 1965 undermines the continued application of extraordinary measures that differentiate between states. While the Fifteenth Amendment empowers Congress to enforce voting rights, it must do so based on current needs and with due regard for the equal dignity of states within the federal system. The failure of Congress to update the coverage formula when reauthorizing the Act in 2006, despite awareness of changed circumstances, renders the formula's current application unconstitutional. The dramatic improvement in minority voter registration and turnout, as well as the increased number of minority elected officials in covered jurisdictions, demonstrates that the extraordinary measures were effective but are no longer justified by current data. The principle of federalism requires that federal intrusion into state sovereignty be based on a showing of current need, not historical conditions. Consequently, the coverage formula's use of decades-old data and practices to impose current burdens is not a rational means to address voting discrimination and cannot be reconciled with the Constitution's guarantee of equal sovereignty.

Concurrence (Thomas, J.) Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional, not just the coverage formula in Section 4(b). The preclearance requirement exceeds Congress's power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment and violates the principle of equal sovereignty among the States. The Court should have gone further in striking down this unconstitutional provision.

Dissent (Ginsburg, J.) Congress compiled an extensive record in 2006 demonstrating the continued necessity of the preclearance requirement in covered jurisdictions. The Court's decision disregards the reality of ongoing discrimination and undermines the progress achieved by the Voting Rights Act. The second-generation barriers to minority voting rights that have emerged in the covered jurisdictions since the last reauthorization are clear evidence that these jurisdictions have not completed the tasks of ending racial discrimination and integrating their voting practices. The Court has failed to recognize that the Voting Rights Act has been vital in addressing these persistent forms of discrimination.