Container Top
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Search

Events Calendar

EVENT SEARCH:

In This Section


Most Read Stories


Blogs:


Pets:
Cat-loving chihuahua suckles seven abandoned kittens

The Heldenfiles:
Friday Night Notebook

Patrick McManamon:
For your Saturday entertainment …

Akron Zips:
Hitchens leads Zips in second-half comeback

Tribe Matters:
Seven players added to Tribe’s 40-man roster

Cleveland Browns:
Holmgren expresses interest in Browns position

Kent State Sports:
Kent State blown out in second half, loses to Temple 13-47

Cleveland Cavaliers:
Gameblog: Cavs at Indiana Pacers – Here’s to LBJ and Free Throws

Buckeye Blogging:
OSU – Michigan college football rivals meet in Baghdad

Varsity Letters:
Four area football teams play tonight

All Da King's Men:
Headed For Disaster

Blog of Mass Destruction:
Will Health Care Reform Pass?

Akron Law Café:
Federal Judge Declares DOMA Unconstitutional

See Jane Style:
Vintage Chic

Car Chase:
TIME TO GET YOUR COLLECTOR CARS WINTERIZED

Let's Talk Real Estate:
Silverdome Potentially SOLD!

Ohio Travels with Betty:
George is looking for a Thanksgiving buffet in Akron.

Sound Check:
Steely Dan Plays "The Royal Scam" at E.J. Thomas Hall

HRLite House:
Colloquium at University of Akron

Akron Gamer:
Nintendo's Mario endures even as games come and go

Narrow escape

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

Published on Wednesday, Jun 24, 2009

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