518
Stevens, J., dissenting
for voting discrimination contained in the Act itself.' South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra, at 334, 335 (footnote omitted). This provision must, of course, be interpreted in light of its prophylactic purpose and the historical experience which it reflects. See, e. g., McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U. S. 130, 151 (1981)." McCain v. Ly-brand, 465 U. S., at 245-246.
Thus, § 5 was understood to be "a 'vital element' of the Act," and was designed to be flexible enough to ensure that " 'new subterfuges will be promptly discovered and enjoined.' " Id., at 248 (citation omitted).15 Section 5, as construed by the Court, was not limited to a "simple inventory of voting procedures," but rather, was understood to address "the reality of changed practices as they affect Negro voters." Georgia v. United States, 411 U. S. 526, 531 (1973).
In subsequent cases, this Court has reaffirmed the broad scope of § 5 coverage, as first articulated by the Court in Allen.16 The Court has interpreted § 5 expansively and has said in the context of candidate qualification that a statute requiring independent candidates to declare their intention to seek office two months earlier than under the previous procedures created a barrier to candidacy and required § 5 preclearance, Hadnott v. Amos, 394 U. S. 358 (1969), and in other contexts, that preclearance is required when there is a change in polling places, Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379 (1971), an alteration in municipal boundaries, City of Rich-15 "[I]n modern-day voting rights cases such as this one, . . . racial discrimination will more than likely not show itself in the blatant forms of the past but instead will be subtle and sophisticated . . . ." App. to Juris. Statement of Appellant Presley 37a (Thompson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
16 See Dougherty County Bd. of Ed. v. White, 439 U. S., at 38 ("In subsequent cases interpreting § 5, we have consistently adhered to the principles of broad construction set forth in Allen"); NAACP v. Hampton County Election Comm'n, 470 U. S., at 176 ("Our precedents recognize that to effectuate the congressional purpose, § 5 is to be given broad scope").
Page: Index Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007