In response to GreginMeffa's comment:
The key is, "some states". If you are one of the some, you had a very legitimate gripe. The only other alternative I see would be to apply it to ALL states, but then the other states would go hoopy, led by Massachusetts no doubt.
So, good decision.
The SCotUS ruling didn't strike down the provision for singling out certain states and jurisdictions for extra scrutiny.
It merely said that the criteria for selective oversight must be re-evaluated.
I'm going with the Times, no offence:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, ruling that Congress had not provided adequate justification for subjecting nine states, mostly in the South, to federal oversight.
Do you really think Congress is going to now provide adequate justification? Really?
No offense taken.
But be aware that selective editing from a source never wins an argument, especially when the bulk of the article disputes your argument. No offense....
If you had bothered to read the entire Times article you would've come across this:
Chief Justice Roberts said that Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but must do so based on contemporary data.
“Congress — if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions,” he wrote. “It cannot simply rely on the past.”
The decision did not strike down Section 5, which sets out the preclearance requirement. But without Section 4, which determines which states are covered, Section 5 is without significance — unless Congress chooses to pass a new bill for determining which states would be covered.