Here comes voter id…

Wow. I’m reading along in Roberts’ opinion, and he’s explained why he thinks Congress’s choices were out-of-date in 2006, almost-sort-of-attempted an explanation of why the 2006 data doesn’t justify using the same list of jurisdictions from prior enactments and extensions (there really isn’t much more to it than, “that was then, this is now, and look at all the minority voters and office holders. He doesn’t really care about continued problems in many jurisdictions), written what seemed to me introductory stuff about each state being an equal sovereign given the back-of-his-hand to the dissent’s quotation from McCullough v. Maryland (“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”)given the briefest of nods to the actual language of the 15th Amendment that justified the Voting Rights Act (he writes: ”It provides that “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” and it gives Congress the “power to enforce this article by appro- priate legislation.””).

I thought: Ok, he’s cleared away what he sees as underbrush, or done with throat clearing, albiet at this point 23 pages in, now we’ll get his reasoning and maybe some talk about why he sees limits to Congress’s ability to decide for itself what is appropriate legislation. Nope. We’re done. Turn to the next page, see him note that “Striking down an Act of Congress “is the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called on to perform.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (Holmes, J., concurring).” Then preclearance is gone. Nothing further to say. On to Thomas (who thinks this is not going far enough. I’m reading that later) and then the dissent.

NMC
6/25/13