The US Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder and subsequent legislative failures to restore the Voting Rights Act (VRA) have alerted scholars to the precarity of federal voting rights and the importance of the Supreme Court to its implementation. I argue, however, that the court has exercised outsized influence on the administration and development of the VRA long before Shelby County, consistently advancing the goals of the Act’s opponents. Using statutory interpretation, the court has shifted both administrative and political burdens from VRA skeptics to its supporters, gradually undermining the efficacy of the law. Administratively, the court has made it harder to implement and enforce the VRA by raising evidentiary standards and narrowing the scope of section 2 and section 5. Making the VRA more burdensome to administer also creates new political burdens for the Act’s supporters, who must navigate a veto-riddled legislative process to reverse unfavorable Court decisions. As a result, the Court has made it more difficult to effectively use sections 2 and 5 to combat racial discrimination in territorial annexations, redistricting, and ballot access. These findings demonstrate yet another instance of the Supreme Court wielding its statutory authority to reshape public policies and illustrate the judicialization of the VRA.

中文翻译：

---

最高法院和负担分配：废除投票权法

美国最高法院的判决谢尔比县诉霍尔德案随后立法未能恢复《投票权法》（VRA），这提醒学者们注意联邦投票权的不稳定以及最高法院对其实施的重要性。然而，我认为法院早在很久以前就对 VRA 的管理和发展施加了巨大的影响。谢尔比县，不断推进该法案反对者的目标。利用法定解释，法院将行政和政治负担从 VRA 怀疑论者转移到其支持者身上，逐渐削弱了该法律的效力。在行政方面，法院通过提高证据标准并缩小第 2 条和第 5 条的范围，加大了 VRA 的实施和执行难度。使 VRA 的管理负担更加繁重，也给该法案的支持者带来了新的政治负担，他们必须在充满否决权的立法程序，以推翻不利的法院判决。因此，法院加大了有效利用第 2 条和第 5 条来打击领土兼并、选区重新划分和投票权方面的种族歧视的难度。这些调查结果表明最高法院运用其法定权力重塑公共政策并说明 VRA 的司法化。