As I explained in this May 15 post on Riley v. Kennedy, Chief Justice Roberts has advanced a reading of section 5 that is at odds with decades of practice in interpreting the law, DOJ regulations, and congressional acquiescence in renewing Section 5 without making any change in its relevant language. From my read of the oral argument, it appeared to be a rather surprising reading to Alabama Governor Riley’s lawyer as well.
Now the same issue posed in the Riley v. Kennedy case has arisen again in Riley v. Plump. In the jurisdictional statement, pages 25-30, the governor embraces the argument, which would mostly eviscerate section 5. The governor is not worried, however: on page 29 he says that section 2 and other constitutional and statutory provisions would prevent discriminatory practices. I’m dubious, but am convinced the Chief Justice (and likely others) will embrace this interpretation when Riley comes out later this term.