Once Congress passes a revision to the VRA to use more recent data, I expect Section 5 to be back in business after a brief blip.
That's funny, expecting this Congress to pass something having to do with voting rights.
The VRA is a reasonably popular law and the GOP will not let the Democrats use it as a cudgel to paint them as racist by blocking a fix if the court indicates one can be done. If the court rules as I expect, that requiring preclearance is fine, but basing the requirement on four decade old data is not, then I expect them to quickly revise section 4 so that instead of using data from 1964, 1968, and 1972, it uses data from 2004, 2008, and 2012. It's not in the GOP's political interest to block a fix.
Developing a formula from that data could be contentious though, right? Back in 1965, the formula used seemed to coincide relatively well as a proxy for those places considered most discriminatory anyway. Now it's less clear which parts of the country are most susceptible to discriminatory practices and whether there is a formula that can reflect it accurately.
