re: #8 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Why is it the Supreme Court’s purview to decide the effectiveness of legislation? What section of the Constitution did they cite in deciding this case, and how did they square it with the 15th?

What method did they use to investigate the effectiveness of the mechanism and the extent of the problem?

I’ll let the Chicago tribune Editorial Board answer that:

The court, though, did not curb anyone’s right to vote. Nor did it free states from congressional or judicial scrutiny and reversal if they attempt to restrict voting rights.

The Voting Rights Act was renewed in 2006 with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress and the signature of President George W. Bush. But constitutional experts warned at the time that that effort was on shaky legal ground because Congress made no effort to use current information to justify the continued restrictions on the nine states.

That’s exactly what the court majority argued in the Tuesday decision.

The court said Congress could come up with a new formula to single out states “on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. It cannot rely simply on the past.” No justification based on current facts was established to subject the nine states to a higher standard than the rest of the country.

Penalizing those states for practices that occurred more than half a century ago was “irrational,” the court majority said. It placed those states under pre-emptive scrutiny they could not escape no matter how much they changed.