Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Section 4 of VRA struck down, leaving Section 5 applying to nothing

Expand Messages
  • Jon Roland
    Interesting majority opinion , striking down Section 4, removing disparate coverage, but leaving Section 5 preclearance untouched, perhaps to be applied to a
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 25, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Interesting majority opinion, striking down Section 4, removing disparate coverage, but leaving Section 5 preclearance untouched, perhaps to be applied to a different coverage formula that Congress must now devise, if Section 5 is to be applied to anything. In the meantime, it applies to a null set, which, at least temporarily, nullifies it.

      As usual, Justice Thomas, in his concurring but separate opinion, sums it up:
      While the Court claims to “issue no holding on §5 itself,” ante, at 24, its own opinion compellingly demonstrates that Congress has failed to justify “ ‘current burdens’ ” with a record demonstrating “ ‘current needs.’ ” See ante, at 9 (quoting Northwest Austin, supra, at 203). By leaving the inevitable conclusion unstated, the Court needlessly prolongs the demise of that provision. For the reasons stated in the Court’s opinion, I would find §5 unconstitutional.

      -- Jon
      
      ----------------------------------------------------------
      Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
      2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322           twitter.com/lex_rex
      Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001  jon.roland@...
      ----------------------------------------------------------
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.