8 SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER GINSBURG, J., dissenting constructed to prevent minority voters from fully partici­ pating in the electoral process” continued to exist, as well as racially polarized voting in the covered jurisdictions, which increased the political vulnerability of racial and language minorities in those jurisdictions. §§2(b)(2)–(3), 120 Stat. 577. Extensive “[e]vidence of continued discrim­ ination,” Congress concluded, “clearly show[ed] the con­ tinued need for Federal oversight” in covered jurisdictions. §§2(b)(4)–(5), id., at 577–578. The overall record demon­ strated to the federal lawmakers that, “without the con­ tinuation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 protections, racial and language minority citizens will be deprived of the opportunity to exercise their right to vote, or will have their votes diluted, undermining the significant gains made by minorities in the last 40 years.” §2(b)(9), id., at 578. Based on these findings, Congress reauthorized pre­ clearance for another 25 years, while also undertaking to reconsider the extension after 15 years to ensure that the provision was still necessary and effective. 42 U. S. C. §1973b(a)(7), (8) (2006 ed., Supp. V). The question before the Court is whether Congress had the authority under the Constitution to act as it did. II In answering this question, the Court does not write on a clean slate. It is well established that Congress’ judg­ ment regarding exercise of its power to enforce the Four­ teenth and Fifteenth Amendments warrants substantial deference. The VRA addresses the combination of race discrimination and the right to vote, which is “preserva­ tive of all rights.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 370 (1886). When confronting the most constitutionally invid­ ious form of discrimination, and the most fundamental right in our democratic system, Congress’ power to act is at its height.