Neither minority voting rights nor the ability of the federal
government to enforce those rights are at stake at Shelby County
v. Holder. Both of those are secure regardless of how the
Supreme Court rules in the case. Instead, Shelby County
considers whether the “exceptional conditions” and “unique
circumstances” of the Jim Crow South still exist such that an
“uncommon exercise of congressional power” is still
constitutionally justified—to quote the 1966 Supreme Court that
approved Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as an emergency
measure. That is, while the “historic accomplishments of the
Voting Rights Act are undeniable,” as the court said 43 years
later, the modern use of Section 5—which requires federal
“preclearance” of any changes in election law in certain
jurisdictions—“raises serious constitutional concerns.” Most
recently renewed in 2006, the provision adopts flawed
assumptions and flies in the face of the 15th Amendment’s
requirement that all voters be treated equally. “Neither
minority voting ri