Section 5 and the Right to Vote Is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act still necessary? That provision requires nine states and some counties and towns with histories of severe racial discrimination to get approval from the Justice Department or a court before changing their voting procedures. The question hovers over three consolidated cases the Supreme Court heard last week on redistricting for legislative and Congressional seats in Texas, a state governed by Section 5. The cases involve two sets of redistricting maps. One was drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature. It starkly favored Republicans, even though population growth came from new Hispanic residents, who tend to vote Democratic. Hispanic residents sued, and a federal court in San Antonio drew a second set of maps that created new districts where minorities would be the majority. The procedural issue is whether the San Antonio court's maps should be used for the state's April primary if the Texas Legislature does not get approval for its maps from a special court in Washington, or whether Texas can use its maps even without that approval. Although Texas has not raised the constitutionality of Section 5, the facts of these cases help explain why the section is crucial and why the justices must rule in a way that preserves its shield against discrimination. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said last week, "Section 5 says you can't draw new maps unless they have been precleared." Without the Section 5 requirement, the Legislature's maps would have gone into effect immediately. The burden would have been on challengers to prove the maps were unacceptable. When Congress debated reauthorization of the statute in 2006, Republicans contended that Section 5 had served its purpose and that states covered by it should no longer have to prove their good intentions. Democrats prevailed by gathering an enormous amount of evidence of continuing discrimination in proposed voting changes, particularly in Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas, all states covered by Section 5. Congress reauthorized Section 5 because it saw the risk that many states would try to circumvent the Voting Rights Act. It concluded that discrimination in voter registration and voting and the dilution of minority votes can still be prevented only through the preclearance process and that there would be more discriminatory efforts without the law's deterrent force. In 15 states, cutbacks in the voting rights of young and poor voters as well as minorities have been turned into law. That doesn't count contested discriminatory redistricting by Texas and other states. In breaching the right to vote, these efforts violate the fundamental civil right. They underscore a continuing need for Section 5.