Bias in The Hill story about Supreme Court decision on Voting Rights Act?

Did the voting rights Act really require a "higher criteria"?  Or was it a political standard?  My guess is that the Obama administration decides to accept decisions for states such as Texas based upon whether it benefits the Democratic Party, not whether it meets some higher moral standard.  The very concern that former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Martin Frost (D-Texas) raises is what motivated Democrat decisions on what redistricting to allow.  From The Hill newspaper:

. . . Barring congressional action, that means a number of states — most of them southern and GOP-controlled — no longer have to meet higher criteria to pass voting laws.  

The ruling holds big implications for congressional redistricting and voter identification laws that Democrats claim are aimed suppressing minority turnout. 

"This makes it much easier for Republicans to draw districts in away that minimizes the opportunities for Democrats in the south, minimizes opportunities for minorities in the South," said former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Martin Frost (D-Texas). . . .