The melodramatic style with which this decision is being reported is hysterical. One would think, based on the headlines, that the they struck down the entire Act.
Part of Chief Justice Roberts' opinion:
Here is what I think is missing from most of the commentary:
1. The court upheld the constitutionality of the preclearance provision, much to the chagrin of Justice Thomas.
2. The opinion emphatically states that 'a' formulaic method for determining preclearance, in and of itself, is not unconstitutional.
3. What leads to 'disparate treatment of the States' is the fact that not only is the prescribed formula, in place since 1965, inept at revealing modern discrimanatory mechanisms, but uses 1972 for its latest baseline.
4. The opinion is essentially telling Congress to create a new formula that addresses modern discriminatory concerns and apply the new criteria across the board.
5. The court warned Congress of this in the opinion of a 2009 Voters Right Act case that was statutorily resolved (The case Roberts quotes above).
Court opinion:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12p...6_6k47.pdf
Part of Chief Justice Roberts' opinion:
Quote: At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; noone doubts that. The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment ofthe States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements. As we put it a short time ago, “the Act imposes currentburdens and must be justified by current needs.” Northwest Austin, 557 U. S., at 203.
Here is what I think is missing from most of the commentary:
1. The court upheld the constitutionality of the preclearance provision, much to the chagrin of Justice Thomas.
2. The opinion emphatically states that 'a' formulaic method for determining preclearance, in and of itself, is not unconstitutional.
3. What leads to 'disparate treatment of the States' is the fact that not only is the prescribed formula, in place since 1965, inept at revealing modern discrimanatory mechanisms, but uses 1972 for its latest baseline.
4. The opinion is essentially telling Congress to create a new formula that addresses modern discriminatory concerns and apply the new criteria across the board.
5. The court warned Congress of this in the opinion of a 2009 Voters Right Act case that was statutorily resolved (The case Roberts quotes above).
Court opinion:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12p...6_6k47.pdf
