More bad reporting at the Star Tribune.  A Texas voting lawsuit arising out of Pasadena, Texas, decidedly does NOT have the ability to “test” Shelby.  Paul Weber of the AP writes:

“Pasadena is preparing to change the makeup of its city council in a way that city fathers hope fosters new development, but that some Hispanics allege dilutes their influence. The case could become a test of the Supreme Court ruling last year that struck down most of the federal Voting Rights Act, giving cities in many Southern states new latitude to change election laws affecting minorities without first getting federal approval.”

“Most” of the Voting Rights Act?  “Test” Shelby?

Good grief.  Where to begin.

Shelby barely nicked the Voting Rights Act.  It struck down one small tiny paragraph regarding the triggers in Section 4.  It did nothing else.  It didn’t touch Section 2, Section 3, Section 5, Section 208, Section 11, Section 203, and on and on.

Next, the lawsuit in Pasadena has nothing to do with Shelby. Nothing. It cannot test it. It cannot question it. It cannot reflect on it, jostle it, reword it, overturn it, reverse it, twist it, wreck it or even brush up against it. It has nothing to do with Shelby.  But that doesn’t matter.

A narrative theme for those who support expansive federal power over state elections is that Shelby is an aberration, subject to rolling re-examination, and always at the brink of reversal either by a court or Congress.  It’s a way to falsely lure readers into de-legitimizing the opinion.