WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Supreme Court compromised Monday in a major voting rights case, finding a powerful enforcement tool in the landmark Voting Rights Act was being applied too broadly.
The decision avoided the larger issue of whether the federal government should continue to have broad oversight to ensure local areas are free of voter discrimination.
The justices by a unanimous vote allowed states and local communities more power to challenge the "preclearance" provision of the 1965 law that provides continuing federal control over election practices in 16 states, based
on past discrimination against minority voters.
Other states are not covered by the provision even if they, too, might discriminate against minority voters.
I am not surprised!
I have read the Constitution, the Homeland Security Act and the Patriot Act and MORE than our voting rights have been diminished or taken away like the necessity for a warrant to enter your home (if they feel you might be a terrorist) and so much more!
Is this really OUR country (by the people for the people)?
Did I misread this article? If I did change that sentence to: ..the courts are ensuring that "certain voters DON"T get to vote". Are we going back in time? Unfortunately the rest of my comment is still valid. OMG!
If you dont believe this law can be flipped on us white folk you better think again. We are becoming a minority and the laws we so eagerly hope will go away will be the same laws we need to protect us….Think about that…….
You think about it Kevin...This is a very ignorant ,paranoid and scary statement.
Why don't you red-neck neo-cons seceed NOW.
Wow so you are telling me this is how the replicans are going to win 2012 by regging the voting again. Its bad enough the cheated us out of two elections. Let me guess are the going run another moron (bushies) like jeb maybe. While your at it why don't you rewrite our history books and let everybody know the south won the civil war all because of a few scared white people. Once again Thanks For Nothing.
Sniffit said "If you do not understand the difference between an actually cast fraudulent vote and volunteers fabricating registrations from the phone book in order to get paid more (they were getting paid by the registration), then you FAIL."
If our country has come to the point that the only way to get people to register to vote is to have paid workers do it, the we ALL fail.
Jessica June 22nd, 2009 11:19 am ET
... I have many friends who volunteered in the polling district they vote in, to ensure that republicans didn't try to tip the scales in some way.
Like the Black Panthers and ACORN?
@ panem et circenses
I speak for myself. I'm a convicted felon, got released, went to school, paid tuition, got a career and I'm not allowed to vote. Something is terribly wrong with the system. Not allowing convicted felons to vote is voter surpression. Primarily to the African-American community.
"The problem with American democracy is that people can vote to benefit themselves at someone else's expense."
– The idea isn't that you vote at the expense of someone else, it's to vote for your own well-being (or perceived well-being I guess). Of course, this can be at someone else's expense depending on what YOUR views are, but it's the same for anyone else. This is hardly a problem, it's the fundamental idea of democracy!!!
tom celandine June 22nd, 2009 11:34 am ET
80 percent of whites in the South voted vor McCain. That shows prejudice is alive and too well in Dixie.
Dude, 98% of blacks voted for Obama, who had (and still has) no history of accomplishing anything. That shows that prejudice is alive and too well throughout the country.
James – If you don't think Liberal activist groups like ACORN are a threat to our democracy, then you need to take your head out of Obama's keister. They've had members arrested or been sued in every state they've set up shop in. Don't believe me? Look it up.
I LOVE when non lawyers comment on the law. hahahhaha. I hate to sound so condescending but it's like watching the soap opera version of a surgical procedure. There are a few ppl here who obviously have a legal education and their comments cut to the issues specifically. However, it seems most of the commentors ignore this dry but exact language in favor of name calling and self righteous opinions based on nothing but their own judgment rife with uninformed and rhetorical partisan talking points from both sides of the aisle. Hahhahaha.
I think it's time that we really take a long, hard look at terms limits for Supreme Court Justices,