As I wrote earlier, the Section 5 ruling was pretty narrow, and that "the majority opinion reads at times more like an argument against Section 5 than one for it." Election law expert Rick Hasen writes that the reason for this is that the Roberts court seems to be setting up Section 5 for a future constitutional challenge, meaning that while Section 5 may have dodged a bullet, there may be more bullets coming. Hasen writes that "Eventually the section 5 question will come back to the Court, but it will likely be two or three years at the least."
Tom Goldstein also believes that the minimalism of the ruling is meant to tee up a constitutional challenge. He writes that "Congress is now effectively on the clock: it has the period between now and the date that it decides a follow-on challenge by a covered jurisdiction that is not permitted to “bail out” of the statutory scheme to amend Section 5. If the statute remains the same by the time the next case arrives, the Court will invalidate the statute."
So while the narrow ruling allows Section 5 to remain intact, the future of the law--and the protections it offers to voters of color, is shaky--particularly since the conservatives are likely to remain a controlling majority on the court the next time around. And uh, looks like Jeffrey Toobin is still right about John Roberts after all. Disappointing.
-- A. Serwer
