From Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion:
“Striking down an Act of Congress ‘is the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called on to perform.’ … We do not do so lightly. That is why, in 2009, we took care to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act when asked to do so, and instead resolved the case then before us on statutory grounds. But in issuing that decision, we expressed our broader concerns about the constitutionality of the act. Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare (Section) 4 unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance. … Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions. … Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
From Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent:
“Beyond question, the VRA is no ordinary legislation. It is extraordinary because Congress embarked on a mission long delayed and of extraordinary importance: to realize the purpose and promise of the 15th Amendment. … Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, progress once the subject of a dream has been achieved and continues to be made. The record supporting the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA is also extraordinary. It was described by the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee as “one of the most extensive considerations of any piece of legislation that the United States Congress has dealt with in the 27½ years” he had served in the House. … It was the judgment of Congress that ‘40 years has not been a sufficient amount of time to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination following nearly 100 years of disregard for the dictates of the 15th amendment and to ensure that the right of all citizens to vote is protected as guaranteed by the Constitution.’ … That determination of the body empowered to enforce the … amendments “by appropriate legislation” merits this court’s utmost respect. In my judgment, the court errs egregiously by overriding Congress’ decision.”
About the Author
