Legal Beat

Civil rights and voting rights activists had worried that the five conservative justices on the court would band together to strike down the section of the law altogether. Such a decision would have roiled election regulations in the covered jurisdictions, mostly in the South. But the court instead respected the will of Congress, which reauthorized Section 5 with lopsided bipartisan majority votes a little less than three years ago.

Thomas argued that the court should have voided the provisions at issue in Section 5 of the law, which requires several states and local jurisdictions to preclear changes in election law with the Justice Department or a Washington, D.C. federal court. And he said the court was wrong to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of Section 5, because it was not enough to rule that the utility district was eligible to seek a "bailout" from the law's requirements.

"The lack of current evidence of intentional discrimination with respect to voting renders Section 5 unconstitutional," Thomas wrote. "The provision can no longer be justified as an appropriate mechanism for enforcement of the 15th Amendment."