 Story highlights A state voter ID law will "take effect immediately" in Texas, attorney general says 
 
 Supreme Court rules that key parts of that 1965 law are unconstitutional 
 
 Chief Justice Roberts says "our country has changed" for the better 
 
 Rep. Lewis faults court for putting "a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act" 
 
 The law passed at the height of America's civil rights movement, when citizens in parts of the country were fighting each other and sometimes authorities over how skin color impacts a person's place in a democracy. Now, its present and future are in doubt after the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision Tuesday that key parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are no longer valid. The formula that Congress enacted as recently as 2006, to determine which areas are covered by the act, has "no logical relation to the present day," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy the problem speaks to the current conditions," he said. Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act – The Voting Rights Act is often called the crown jewel of the civil rights movement, yet many Americans do not know why or how it was passed. Hide Caption 5 of 14 Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act – President Lyndon Johnson, pictured here discussing the act with the Rev. Hide Caption 11 of 14 Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act – A supporter of the Voting Rights Act rallies in the South Carolina State House in Columbia on February 26, 2013, the day before oral hearings at the Supreme Court. Al Sharpton, left, deliver remarks during a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on February 27, 2013, as the court prepared to hear oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, the legal challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. But President Barack Obama did not, nor did civil rights leaders. U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), left, and the Rev. Alabama, which was the subject of the Supreme Court case, and eight other complete states as well as some other selected jurisdictions elsewhere have been subject to Section 5. Roberts said that formula, which was devised in 1972 and later reauthorized by Congress, is outdated and unworkable. The court did not pass judgement on Section 5 Tuesday, which means the Justice Department still has authority to decide which jurisdictions need pre-clearance. It relies heavily on the coverage formula to determine which governments must still run any changes by the U.S. Justice Department. “Section 4’s formula is unconstitutional in light of current conditions,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. The question is whether lawmakers will come up with a new formula to decide which areas will be subject to pre-clearance under Section 5. This is the part of the Voting Rights Act that makes it legal for areas with a history of racial discrimination to receive pre-clearance from the Justice Department or a federal court before making any voting law changes. "The justices correctly acknowledged that the covered jurisdictions should no longer be punished by the federal government for conditions that existed over 40 years ago," said Frank Ellis, the county attorney for Shelby County, where 11% of residents are African-American compared to 28% statewide. "The South is an altogether different place than it was in 1965."
– The Supreme Court dealt what looks like a mortal wound to the Voting Rights Act today, striking down the law's key enforcement metric. The court did not, as some had expected, strike down Section 5, which gives the federal government oversight over states and localities with a history of voter discrimination. Instead, in a 5-4 decision, the court's conservative justices ruled that the formula used to determine which places require oversight is out of date, CNN explains. (The Washington Post has a quick primer on the law's specifics.) "Our country has changed," John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion, according to NBC. Congress must ensure that any law passed to fight racial discrimination "speaks to current conditions." The ruling puts the onus on Congress to re-draft the formula, and pretty much no one is optimistic about the deeply divided body's ability to do that. On Twitter, Dave Weigel voiced the conventional wisdom thusly: "SCOTUS to Congress: 'You have to pass a bill to fix this.' Congress: 'We can... pass... bills?'"