Question

What did Chief Justice Roberts mean when he stated that the Voting Rights Act "employed extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem"?

Answer 1

Answer:

Chief Justice John Roberts meant that the

Chief Justice John Roberts meant that theproblem of voter suppression had been

Chief Justice John Roberts meant that theproblem of voter suppression had beenan extraordinary problem in some states

Chief Justice John Roberts meant that theproblem of voter suppression had beenan extraordinary problem in some statesat the time of the Voting Rights Act of

Chief Justice John Roberts meant that theproblem of voter suppression had beenan extraordinary problem in some statesat the time of the Voting Rights Act of1965 and subsequent decades and that

Chief Justice John Roberts meant that theproblem of voter suppression had beenan extraordinary problem in some statesat the time of the Voting Rights Act of1965 and subsequent decades and thatbecause the problem was acute in some

Chief Justice John Roberts meant that theproblem of voter suppression had beenan extraordinary problem in some statesat the time of the Voting Rights Act of1965 and subsequent decades and thatbecause the problem was acute in somestates, extraordinary measures had been

Chief Justice John Roberts meant that theproblem of voter suppression had beenan extraordinary problem in some statesat the time of the Voting Rights Act of1965 and subsequent decades and thatbecause the problem was acute in somestates, extraordinary measures had beenneeded in those states to ensure that all

Chief Justice John Roberts meant that theproblem of voter suppression had beenan extraordinary problem in some statesat the time of the Voting Rights Act of1965 and subsequent decades and thatbecause the problem was acute in somestates, extraordinary measures had beenneeded in those states to ensure that allvoters' rights were respected.

The statement from Roberts was made in his opening remarks in writing the Supreme Court majority opinion in the case Shelby County v. Holder (2013). That case challenged the constitutionality of some of the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The majority, by a 5-4 vote, ruled that section 4(b) of the 1965 law is, at least in the present, unconstitutional, because it was relying on 40-year-old data in making its application of extraordinary rules for some states which previously had practiced voter discrimination. The Supreme Court ruling determined that the law was no longer responsive to current needs and would need to be updated.

Thx

I hope this answer will help you.Thank You.