The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, “an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremittingand ingenious defiance of the Constitution.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 309. Section 2 of the Act, which bans any“standard, practice, or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen . . . to vote on account of raceor color,” 42 U. S. C. §1973(a), applies nationwide, is permanent, and is not at issue in this case. Other sections apply only to some parts of the country. Section 4 of the Act provides the “coverage formula,” defining the “covered jurisdictions” as States or political subdivisionsthat maintained tests or devices as prerequisites to voting, and had low voter registration or turnout, in the 1960s and early 1970s. §1973b(b). In those covered jurisdictions, §5 of the Act provides that no change in voting procedures can take effect until approved byspecified federal authorities in Washington, D. C. §1973c(a). Such approval is known as “preclearance.”The coverage formula and preclearance requirement were initiallyset to expire after five years, but the Act has been reauthorized several times. In 2006, the Act was reauthorized for an additional 25 years, but the coverage formula was not changed. Coverage still turned on whether a jurisdiction had a voting test in the 1960s or1970s, and had low voter registration or turnout at that time. Shortly after the 2006 reauthorization, a Texas utility district sought tobail out from the Act’s coverage and, in the alternative, challenged the Act’s constitutionality. This Court resolved the challenge on statutory grounds, but expressed serious doubts about the Act’s continued constitutionality. See Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193.
Petitioner Shelby County, in the covered jurisdiction of Alabama,sued the Attorney General in Federal District Court in Washington,
D. C., seeking a declaratory judgment that sections 4(b) and 5 are facially unconstitutional, as well as a permanent injunction againsttheir enforcement. The District Court upheld the Act, finding thatthe evidence before Congress in 2006 was sufficient to justify reauthorizing §5 and continuing §4(b)’s coverage formula. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. After surveying the evidence in the record, that courtaccepted Congress’s conclusion that §2 litigation remained inadequate in the covered jurisdictions to protect the rights of minorityvoters, that §5 was therefore still necessary, and that the coverageformula continued to pass constitutional muster.
Held: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formulacan no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance. Pp. 9–25.
