Politico has a lead story on challenges to Section 5 and what they characterize as an "siege on the Voting Rights Act."  The modern reality is that the invasive and disproportionate nature of Section 5 with the concurrent lack of justification for such unequal treatment of only certain states in 2012 threatens equal application of the Voting Rights Act.  Those challenging Section 5 will be giving the Supreme Court the opportunity to mend the Voting Rights Act from the potentially current unconstitutional application of Section 5.  An excerpt from the article:   

The lawsuit brought by Shelby County was argued this month at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and could be on a fast track for the Supreme Court.

The provision “was constitutional in 1965 and 1975. And Alabama was, shamefully, a big reason why,” said a brief filed in November by lawyers for Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange. “But in part because of Section 5, Alabama has changed, and the statute is no longer a necessary and proper means of redressing constitutional injury.”

Strange’s brief argues that African Americans now serve in the state Legislature at rates comparable to their percentage of the population and that white and black voters have about the same registration rate.

Voting Rights Act critics also say the list of 16 states that get special scrutiny is badly outdated. “It makes no sense [now] for the State of Texas but not the State of Arkansas to be covered,” Blum said.

A series of cases filed recently by South Carolina and other states seek approval for voter ID laws and other voting changes. However, some of those cases also hint that the act’s pre-clearance provision could be unconstitutional.