<P> The final case in which the Supreme Court upheld Section 5 was Lopez v. Monterey County (Lopez II) (1999). In Lopez II, the Court reiterated its reasoning in Katzenbach and Rome, and it upheld as constitutional the requirement that covered local governments obtain preclearance before implementing voting changes that their parent state required them to implement, even if the parent state was not itself a covered jurisdiction . </P> <P> The 2006 extension of Section 5 was challenged before the Supreme Court in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (2009). The lawsuit was brought by a municipal water district in Texas that elected members to a water board . The District wished to move a voting location from a private home to a public school, but that change was subject to preclearance because Texas was a covered jurisdiction . The District did not register voters, and thus it did not appear to qualify as a "political subdivision" eligible to bail out of coverage . Although the Court indicated in dicta (a non-binding part of the court's opinion) that Section 5 presented difficult constitutional questions, it did not declare Section 5 unconstitutional; instead, it interpreted the law to allow any covered local government, including one that does not register voters, to obtain an exemption from preclearance if it meets the bailout requirements . </P> <P> On November 9, 2012, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Shelby County v. Holder limited to the question of "whether Congress' decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4 (b)... exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, thus violating the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution". On June 25, 2013, the Court struck down Section 4 (b) as unconstitutional . The Court reasoned that the coverage formula violates the constitutional principles of "equal sovereignty of the states" and federalism because its disparate treatment of the states is "based on 40 year - old facts having no logical relationship to the present day", which makes the formula unresponsive to current needs . The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4 (b), no jurisdiction may be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula . After the decision, several states that were fully or partially covered--including Texas, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina--implemented laws that were previously denied preclearance . This prompted new legal challenges to these laws under other provisions unaffected by the Court's decision, such as Section 2 . </P> <P> While Section 2 and Section 5 prohibit jurisdictions from drawing electoral districts that dilute the votes of protected minorities, the Supreme Court has held that in some instances, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents jurisdictions from drawing district lines to favor protected minorities . The Court first recognized the justiciability of affirmative "racial gerrymandering" claims in Shaw v. Reno (1993). In Miller v. Johnson (1995), the Court explained that a redistricting plan is constitutionally suspect if the jurisdiction used race as the "predominant factor" in determining how to draw district lines . For race to "predominate", the jurisdiction must prioritize racial considerations over traditional redistricting principles, which include "compactness, contiguity, (and) respect for political subdivisions or communities defined by actual shared interests ." If a court concludes that racial considerations predominated, then the redistricting plan is considered "racially gerrymandered" and must be subjected to strict scrutiny, meaning that the redistricting plan will be upheld as constitutional only if it is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest . In Bush v. Vera (1996), a plurality of the Supreme Court assumed that complying with Section 2 or Section 5 constituted compelling interests, and lower courts have allowed only these two interests to justify racial gerrymandering . </P>

As a result of the voting rights act of 1965 which of the following happened