 Roberts is correct to see the VRA as a “dramatic departure” (535) from the traditional legal view of the power of the national government to regulate state elections. As Ackerman stresses, the act was a radical piece of legislation, akin to a constitutional amendment in the way that it overturned long-settled legal understandings (2014). Nonetheless, Roberts’s argument that Congress must reshape the coverage formula is not convincing. On the surface, it appears unreasonable for Congress to rely on an old formula despite important changes in the situation of blacks. But the fact that a situation has changed in some relevant respects does not mean that it has changed in all such respects, and a closer look by Congress determined that in one respect matters had not changed: the same jurisdictions picked out by the old formula still had the most problematic records in upholding the rights of blacks to an undiluted vote. Roberts glosses over the fact that increases in registration among blacks do not address the problem of racial vote dilution, and, although he is correct that black officeholding rates have increased considerably since 1970, it was reasonable for Congress to conclude that the increase was due largely to vigorous federal enforcement based on the old coverage formula.