Three new articles of relevance:
VRA Section 3 and what it can mean.
My short take on the issue: If you’re con, you probably argue that existing evidence justified leaving the VRA intact – and much of that evidence was cited after the SCOTUS decision in criticism of their verdict. (I’ve posted a link to my Voting files elsewhere.)
If you’re pro, rather than suggesting everything is fine you go with the fact that the formula was outdated, and that SCOTUS was correct in dumping it back in Congress’s lap to fix. You may also get to argue that other sections of the VRA are sufficient to prevent voting rights abuses. These articles may help with those positions.