The Day The Voting Died

As expected, the Roberts Court has struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by cleverly striking down Section FOUR instead, saying that the formula that Congress uses to determine which states are under Section 5 pre-clearance is no longer Constitutional.  And of course is was a 5-4 vote to throw out 49 years of voting protections for minorities.

A deeply divided Supreme Court has limited use of a key provision in the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, in effect invalidating federal enforcement over all or parts of 15 states with past history of voter discrimination.

The court said it is now up to congressional lawmakers to revise the law to meet constitutional scrutiny.

"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 the current conditions," said Chief Justice John Roberts for the 5-4 conservative majority.

Section 4 of the law was struck down, the coverage formula used by the federal government to determine which states and counties are subject to continued oversight. Roberts said that formula from 1972 was outdated and unworkable.

Sure.  Republicans will get right on that new formula thing.  Count out the South from here on out, folks.  It's open season on massive gerrymandering because now, no states, districts, or localities are subject to Section 5 rules.  Chief Justice Roberts' opinion is here:

Held: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to pre-clearance.

Justice Ginsburg's epic dissent should be in America's history books:

In the Court’s view, the very success of §5 of the Voting
Rights Act demands its dormancy. Congress was of
another mind. Recognizing that large progress has been
made, Congress determined, based on a voluminous rec­
ord, that the scourge of discrimination was not yet extir­
pated. The question this case presents is who decides
whether, as currently operative, §5 remains justifiable,
this Court, or a Congress charged with the obligation to
enforce the post-Civil War Amendments “by appropriate
legislation.” With overwhelming support in both Houses,
Congress concluded that, for two prime reasons, §5 should
continue in force, unabated. First, continuance would
facilitate completion of the impressive gains thus far
made; and second, continuance would guard against back­
sliding. Those assessments were well within Congress’
province to make and should elicit this Court’s unstinting
approbation.

The only thing that's history now?  The rights of millions of Americans to vote.