Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 4 of Voting Rights Act

This is big

At the Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court Deals Blow to Voting Rights Act":

The Supreme Court upended a longstanding pillar of civil-rights-era legislation, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, ruling that the decades-old formula that Congress used to identify areas of the country subject to stringent oversight of election procedures is no longer constitutional.

The court ruled unconstitutional Section 4 of the law, which provides a coverage formula used to determine which voting districts must "pre-clear" voting changes with officials in Washington.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 ruling for the court, which was divided along its usual ideological lines.

The court didn't rule on two gay-marriage cases Tuesday. It said it would issue the final opinions of the 2012-13 term on Wednesday, when the gay-marriage rulings are expected to come.

Chief Justice Roberts said Congress failed to update the Voting Rights Act formula that singles out many localities, mostly in the South, and requires them to seek the approval of the U.S. Justice Department before making any changes to their voting procedures.

"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," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a 24-page opinion.

The court said it wasn't issuing any ruling on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which puts the formula into effect. "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. However, that may be a difficult proposition in a deeply divided Congress.

The case involved Shelby County in Alabama, which is subject to the extra oversight under the law.

Congress has repeatedly reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, most recently in 2006, when President George W. Bush signed bipartisan legislation extending it 25 years.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a 37-page dissent, joined by the three other members of the court's liberal wing. She said Congress's move in 2006 shouldn't be overridden by the courts. "In my judgment, the Court errs egregiously by overriding Congress' decision," she wrote.

Also at Legal Insurrection, "Supreme Court Voting Rights Act Decision — Section 4 invalid."

I'll read around and update in a bit...

Added: Here's Amy Howe, at SCOTUS Blog, "Details on Shelby County v. Holder: In Plain English."

And at Twitchy, "Meltdown of the day: Melissa Harris-Perry laments loss of citizenship after SCOTUS’ VRA decision," and "Schadenfreudelicious: MSNBC host ‘physically enraged’ by SCOTUS’ Voting Rights Act decision."

More at Memeorandum.