concurring.
The decision today is foreshadowed by Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U. S. 535 (1978), and I join the Court’s opinion. The constitutionality of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been sustained by prior cases. If the question were presented for reconsideration, I would adhere to the contrary view as previously expressed. City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 193 (1980) (Powell, J., dissenting); Dougherty County Bd. of Ed. v. White, 439 U. S. 32, 48 (1978) (Powell, J., dissenting); Georgia v. United States, 411 U. S. 526, 545 (1973) (Powell, J., dissenting). See also United States v. Sheffield Board of Commissioners, 435 U. S. 110, 141 (1978) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 586, and n. 4 (1969) (Harlan, J., concurring *154in part and dissenting in part); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 358 (1966) (Black, X, concurring and dissenting).*
In his dissent, Justice Black stated that his “objection to § 5 is that [it] . . . conflict [s] with the most basic principles of the Constitution.” 383 U. S., at 358. Justice Black added:
“Section 5, by providing that some of the States cannot pass state laws or adopt state constitutional amendments without first being compelled to beg federal authorities to approve their policies, so distorts our constitutional structure of government as to render any distinction drawn in the Constitution between state and federal power almost meaningless. One of the most basic premises upon which our structure of government was founded was that the Federal Government was to have certain specific and limited powers and no others, and all other power was to be reserved either ‘to the States respectively, or to the people.’ Certainly if all the provisions of our Constitution which limit the power of the Federal Government and reserve other power to the States are to mean anything, they mean at least that the States have power to pass laws and amend their constitutions without first sending their officials hundreds of miles away to beg federal authorities to approve them.” Id., at 358-359. The right freely to vote must be safeguarded vigilantly. If a state law denies or impairs this right, in violation of the Constitution or of a valid federal law, the courts are the proper and traditional forum for redress.