Container Top
Search

Events Calendar

EVENT SEARCH:

In This Section


Most Read Stories


Blogs:


First Bell - On Education:
No City of Akron basketball tonight

Pets:
Pet telethon re-airs

The Heldenfiles:
Chipmunks "Squeakquel" on DVD/BD March 30

Akron Zips:
Late surge gives Zips ugly road win

Tribe Matters:
Cleveland Browns:
Stallworth's contract terminated

Balanced Ledger:
QB in Browns future: another mock draft

Kent State Sports:
KSU Notes – February 9

Cleveland Cavaliers:
NBA Power Rankings from Around the Internet

Buckeye Blogging:
Buckeyes grab 18 players on signing day

Varsity Letters:
Garfield at Buchtel basketball

All Da King's Men:
Palin At The Tea Party Convention

Blog of Mass Destruction:
Republican Pre-Conditions

Akron Law Café:
Citizens United v. F.E.C. (Part 4): Kennedy's and O'Connor's Basic Approaches to Constitutional Decisionmaking – Top Down and Bottom Up

Car Chase:
Collector Car Hobby Loses One of the Best—Jim Roll

Let's Talk Real Estate:
Decisions Decisions: Credit Cards or Your Mortgage?

Ohio Travels with Betty:
Loucile is looking for a Lake Erie getaway in June for three kids, ages 1, 3, and 5.

Sound Check:
Talk of the Town – Top entertainment picks for the weekend

HRLite House:
Track HR Research

Akron Gamer:
Makers of 'Castle Crashers' unveil 'BattleBlock Theater'

See Jane Style:
Do IT this week: Layering

Narrow escape

A critical provision of the Voting Rights Act survives the Supreme Court

Listen to the oral argument in April, and the fair conclusion was: The Supreme Court appeared ready to cast aside a core provision of the Voting Rights Act. On Monday, the court ruled in the case involving a Texas utility district seeking to ''bail out'' of Section 5, an aspect of the law requiring covered jurisdictions, mostly in the South, to get permission from the Justice Department or a federal court before they make changes to voting procedures.

An 8-1 majority granted relief to the utility district, but it did so narrowly. It limited the option to small jurisdictions that do not handle their own voter registration. That amounts to a qualified victory for those concerned about the court acting hastily to remove a key tool in protecting civil rights, especially in view of the coming Census and the redrawing of congressional and legislative districts.

Of worry was the tone of the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts. He made much of the ''historic accomplishments'' under the Voting Rights Act. He stressed that ''things have changed in the South.'' He highlighted the strides in voter turnout and registration, plus the ''unprecedented levels'' of elected minority officeholders.

All of that is true, and well worth applauding. At the same time, a court majority looking for another opportunity to ease further or remove the requirement of Section 5 should keep in mind the wealth of information gathered by Congress as recently as 2006 when lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to reauthorize the provision. Lawmakers didn't act without reason or in a heavy-handed way. They recognized how precious the achievements have been, and how important it is to ensure they are secure.

Listen to the oral argument in April, and the fair conclusion was: The Supreme Court appeared ready to cast aside a core provision of the Voting Rights Act. On Monday, the court ruled in the case involving a Texas utility district seeking to ''bail out'' of Section 5, an aspect of the law requiring covered jurisdictions, mostly in the South, to get permission from the Justice Department or a federal court before they make changes to voting procedures.

Get the full article here.


Story tools

Email  Email   Print  Print   Save  Save   Reprint  Reprint   Popular  Most Popular   Reprint  Subscribe

Share this story

AddThis Social Bookmark Button














Most Commented Stories