Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 creates a coverage formula for determining which states and political subdivisions will be subject to additional scrutiny. The formula is based on the previous use of racially discriminatory practices and low voter registration or turnout. Section 5 of the Voting Rights act of 1965 holds that no jurisdiction that qualifies under the coverage formula can implement any changes in voting procedures until the changes are approved by the U.S. Justice Department or a federal court. Under Section 5 all states must obtain federal permission before enacting any law related to voting. (Con Law Textbook, pg. 725) Chief Justice Roberts rejected Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act because he believed that they were unconstitutional …show more content…
The constraints that Section 4 places on certain states made since back in the 1960s but they don’t make any sense now and they represent an unconstitutional violation of the power to regulate elections that the Constitution reserves for the states. Justice Roberts goes on to say that “the Fifteenth Amendment commands that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race or color, and it gives Congress the power to enforce that command. The Amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future. To serve that purpose, 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. It cannot rely simply on the past.” (Con Law Textbook, pg. 728) Justice Roberts is saying that Congress could have and should have updated the coverage formula when it reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 but they failed to do so. As a result, the Court declared Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to be