I disagree. This is more like the Court upholding a flag burning law by saying you surely can ban flag burning, but the part of your law specifically banning burning 48 star flags is too out of date.
Section 5 is upheld. They did not decide that it was against the Constitution to hold certin states to higher scrutiny based on past offenses. What they did was say the formula was out of date even though Congress examined 15,000 pages of evidence to uphold it only 7 years ago. That's legislating.
I'd have disagreed with it if they had tossed out pre-clearance itself as against the Constitution but I'd respect the reasoning more. As it is, they more REWROTE the law than ruled on an actual Cnstitutional matter.
no subject
Section 5 is upheld. They did not decide that it was against the Constitution to hold certin states to higher scrutiny based on past offenses. What they did was say the formula was out of date even though Congress examined 15,000 pages of evidence to uphold it only 7 years ago. That's legislating.
I'd have disagreed with it if they had tossed out pre-clearance itself as against the Constitution but I'd respect the reasoning more. As it is, they more REWROTE the law than ruled on an actual Cnstitutional matter.