JOHN YOO, THE CORNER: "Shelby shows that the Court — albeit by a 5-4 majority — finally came to grips with reality. The Voting Rights Act worked. But it was an extraordinary remedy that intruded on state sovereignty over elections. And like all extraordinary remedies, it was only for unusual times. Those times have come to an end."
RACHEL WEINER, THE FIX: "To see what’s changed, just look at Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). In 2006 he voted both in committee and in the full Senate to reauthorize the law, despite his desire for some changes. ... Now, Sessions tells reporters the Supreme Court’s decision 'was good news, I think, for the South.' ”
JOSHUA GREEN, BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK: "On its face, this looks like a big victory for Republicans. Is it really? I suspect it will turn out to be a poisoned chalice. Many of the GOP’s current problems stem from the fact that it is overly beholden to its white, Southern base at a time when the country is rapidly becoming more racially diverse. In order to expand its base of power beyond the House of Representatives, the GOP needs to expand its appeal to minority voters."
DYLAN MATTHEWS, WONKBLOG: "So what actually happens, now that Section 5 is defunct? Rick Pildes, an election law expert at New York University thinks some of the reactions to those questions on the voting law are hyperbolic."
KEVIN DRUM, MOTHER JONES: "The Republican Party has made it crystal clear that suppressing minority voting is now part of its long-term strategy, and I have little doubt that this will now include hundreds of changes to voting laws around the country that just coincidentally happen to disproportionately benefit whites."
JOHN FUND, THE CORNER: "The Supreme Court’s decision today to overturn a small part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is actually a victory for civil rights. As the court noted, what made sense both in moral and practical terms almost a half century ago has to be approached anew."