re: #5 ThomasLite

Maybe this is woefully naive of me, but isn’t the fact they’re hearing this just after an election which has in many places shown the continued need for such legislation something which enhances it’s chance of being upheld?
It sure seems like it would be easier to argue for this section 5 thingy now than ten years ago, from where I’m standing.

The problem is that if a law is to be kept in place, the Supreme Court doesn’t need to address the issue at all. Thus, action by the Court suggests the likelihood of striking this part of the VRA down.