“The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process.” —Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joined. Facts The Fifteenth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1870, following the Civil War. It provides that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the federal or state governments on account of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude, and gives Congress the power to enact laws to enforce the Amendment. During the first century after the Fifteenth Amendment, congressional enforcement of the Amendment was a complete failure. Many states enacted literacy and knowledge tests, good moral character requirements, need for vouchers from registered voters, and voter intimidation to prevent minority citizens from qualifying to vote or voting. Based on these impairments, voting by minority citizens, particularly African Americans, was substantially lower than white voters. In 1965 Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 forbids any standard, practice, or procedure that denies or abridges the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color. Section 4(b) provides a coverage formula that identified six states—Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia—that maintained illegal voting requirements that substantially reduced minority voter turnout. Section 5 stipulates that the covered states could not make any changes to voting districts or voting procedures without preclearance from federal authorities in Washington, D.C. Portions of other states, including Texas, were added to the list of covered jurisdictions. The Voting Rights Act, which was originally enacted for five years, had been reauthorized by Congress for more than forty years. In 2006, Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act for 25 years. Shortly after the 2006 reauthorization, a Texas district challenged the constitutionality of the special coverage provision of the Voting Rights Act. The U.S. district court and the U.S. court of appeals upheld this provision. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal. 

Issue: Is the coverage provision of the Voting Rights Act that singles out several states for the federal preclearance requirement constitutional? 

Language of the U.S. Supreme Court Census Bureau data from the most recent election indicate that African-American voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in five of the six States originally covered by Section 5, with a gap in the sixth State of less than one half of one percent. There is no doubt that these improvements are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act. The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process. A statute’s current burdens must be justified by current needs, and any disparate geographic coverage must be sufficiently related to the problem that it targets. The coverage formula met that test in 1965, but no longer does so. Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices. 

Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court held that the coverage provision of the Voting Right Act that requires preclearance by the federal government for covered states to make changes to voting districts and other voting requirements is unconstitutional. 

Dissenting Opinion: Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, progress once the subject of a dream has been achieved and continues to be made. After exhaustive evidence-gathering and deliberative process, Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, including the coverage provision, with overwhelming bipartisan support. In my judgment, the Court errs egregiously by overriding Congress’ decision. 

Ethics Questions: When Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act in 1965 was there sufficient justification to do so? Was it ethical for states to adopt impairments to minority voters? Was the special requirement for designated states to seek federal approval before making voting changes necessary in 1965? Do you think that such a requirement is necessary today?