This Article examines the Department of Justice’s practices in carrying out its duties under Section 5, focusing on the state of South Carolina. From the time of enacting until 1995, the DOJ imposed a steady number of objections to proposed changes from South Carolina. Yet after 1995, the number of objections decreased sharply. This drastic change raises myriad implications. For one, it appears to support the argument from the Act’s critics that the preclearance requirement has outlived its usefulness. The sharp decline also supports the view that the Supreme Court has gutted to the Act to the point the DOJ no longer has a useful role to play under Section 5.

       Despite these implications, we are not ready to advocate for the sunset of the preclearance provision. This is because we found that even though the absolute number of objections declined, the number of objections based on retrogression grounds, that is, on the state’s inability to convince the DOJ that the proposed change did not make voters of color rose off than they were before, remained steady. Moreover, the decline in objections can be explained by the Supreme Court’s recent narrowing of its interpretation of the Act rather than a reduction in the need for the Act’s continued operation.