CNN

I think it's time that we really take a long, hard look at terms limits for Supreme Court Justices,

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.

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.

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.

"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!!!

@ 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.

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?

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.

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.

Why don't you red-neck neo-cons seceed NOW.

Kevin

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.

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!

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)?

Dutch/Bad Newz, VA : "If they are not allowed to vote, why should they be taxed? The system is totally unfair!"

So, if they don't pay taxes they should not be allowed to vote, either? Be careful what you advocate for because a lot of us tax-paying citizens would agree with that one.

@ Henry Miller, who said "The problem with American democracy is that people can vote to benefit themselves at someone else's expense."
________________________

Sir... no truer words have ever been spoken. I commend you on your wisdom.

In response to "Realistic",

I don't believe the Supreme Court's job is solely to determine whether something is Consitutional or not. In fact, it tries to avoid making those decisions if there are other grounds to decide a case. I think "compromise" was a bad word for the article to use, but what the Supreme Court did what was right. It avoided the Constitutional question and decided the case by reading the statute narrowly. The appellants got relief and the law is still there to protect minority voters. Win win for everyone.

"Thousands of fraudulent votes for Obama were counted (non-U.S. citizens, ACORN, other organizations)."

WRONG. 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. Did you vote twice? How do you know someone didn't scoop your name out of the phone book in order to claim they registered more people? But you still only voted once, right? Stop believing the misrepresentations of the bitter minority.

What part of "by a unanimous vote " don't you get? Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals agreed on the finding. For once the Supremes did exactly their job by analyzing the law against the federal and state powers that are established in the constitution. It is NOT their job to determine the rightousness or appropriateness of the law as so many of us here appear to believe.

Well whether you want to or not! You are going to have to bring back the troops in Iraqu. Iran has started something that just stay in Iran.

Too true for U: You must have your head in the sand. ACORN and all the umbrella organizations belonging to it is THE MOST DANGEROUS THREAT to free elections. Voter Fraud, misappropriating tax dollars are just the surface wrongs done by an organization that wants to end our once precious way of life. I for one, am thankful that the constitution has not been completely dilluted yet and can still protect us.

I work as an election officer and the process works provided those organizing it at the county and state level set it up that way. It would help if some of the people commenting here took the time to know how the system worked in their area (maybe working a precinct?) rather than coming out with wild-assed guesses about what can and can't be done. (Generally, if an election is corrupt its because officials made it that way.)

The system is already set up in a way that voters have to identify themselves to the election officers. If they're new voters in a Federal election then they have to provide ID. Many people offer it even if its not necessary - the essence of each precinct is that its local so after a bit you get to know and recognize many of your electors.

All ACORN did in the last election was register voters. Those registrations still have to be processed by the county elections department. ACORN isn't allowed by law to vet registrations, that's the county's job.

Michael wrote: [Now they need to ban people that don't pay taxes from voting. If you don't have a stake in government you shouldn't have a say in it either.]

United States Constitution: "1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

Constitution 1 / Michael 0

Holder dismissing the "New Black Panther" case in PA...when the perps had already been convicted because they did not show up to protest?????? Is this reverse Jim Crow???? Men with weapons intimidating voters at the front door of a voting location and our Government turning them loose. Need to work harder on enforcing our Constitution.

Constitution????Do we still have one of those? For the last 8 years, that document has been stepped, ripped apart and totally sat on the back burner, while the bush administration tried to rule with an iron fist. I don't think anyone won on this one. Everyone should have an equal vote regardless of who they are. The 16 states that pertained to, just in case anyone was wondering, mostly fall into that category of not realizing they lost the civil war. Get over it.

It saddens me that people don't know the true history of voter intimidation and the atrocities that were carried out years ago. The only problem with the voting rights act was that it only covered certain states instead of all of them...

Comment by Bill requiring ID to vote.
Do illegal aliens or legal aliens vote? Of course they do and they do influence the outcome of elections.
When I lived in California you could not even ask if a person was a citizen when registering to voting even if registration had to take place in foreign language.

The title to this article does a great disservice. The court went out of its way not to rule on the constitutionality of section 5. Instead, in what is at worst an 8-1 decision (in which the "1" concurred in the judgment), interpreted the statute's use of the phrase political subdivision broadly enough to include a small non-county voting district as being eligible to apply for relief from pre-clearance requirements under the voting rights act

JonDie – June 22nd, 2009 10:47 am ET said:
As we hypocritically criticize elections in Iran, our own "mullahs" here in the US (the ones who selected Bush as president after Bush LOST the 2000 election) rule in favor of curtailing the right of minorities to vote in our own country. I hope the Iranian mullahs aren't paying attention; they could very rightly criticize US for our election problems.
-----------
Good overall attempt to try and compare the U.S.'s 2000 election with the Iran election, though none of the facts in either are easily comparable.

If you want a good comparison, why not choose the 2008 U.S. election? Thousands of fraudulent votes for Obama were counted (non-U.S. citizens, ACORN, other organizations). However, even if you take out the fraudulent votes, Obama still would have won (most likely true in Iran too; take out the fraudulent votes and the result would hold up).

The only difference is that you don't see the "losers" in the U.S. throwing rocks to get their way. The "losers" only attempt to debate it, even if the response from the "winners" is always "So what, we won!" or "Bush sucks!"

I don't really think its a big imposition to have to show an ID to vote. Anyone who doesn't have a photo ID in this day and age probably shouldn't be trusted to vote anyway. Lets all get into the 21st century and act like adults. Photo ID's are part of life today. I believe people who oppose such routine restrictions are the ones who are really ingaged in voter fraud.

Pete...votes disappearing and more ballots cast than registered voters? Sounds a lot like Chicago.

Liberals need to stop whining on here about racism and all those other lame excuses. you get 4 years of Obama and when he blows it, the other side will get another shot. He really has not done anything except give speeches, that does not accomplish anything. He will not save the world or change it and that is fine with me.

@Michael: "Now they need to ban people that don't pay taxes from voting. If you don't have a stake in government you shouldn't have a say in it either."

Right on!

The problem with American democracy is that people can vote to benefit themselves at someone else's expense.

@george

Yeah George, those 2 thugs really stole the election for Obama, didn't they?

Please! Once the cops discovered what they guys were doing, they shooed them away like a couple flies. To claim this is some sort of pattern of voter intimidation is just ridiculous.

Luke – slightly wrong on amendments 9 & 10....the states don't "give" the federal government any power.

Amendment 9 says that not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution and those not mentioned are held by the PEOPLE. The 10th amendment provides that those not held by the government and that the state isn't prohibited from exercising, are given to the States.

However, under Due Process, Equal Protection, etc, Federalism takes the cake.

To Obama Victim: It is uneducated and lack of understanding of your history that gives you the "mentality" to see this as a number (Constitution 1, Liberals 0). and this is not about ACORN you moron.

It was the Civil Rights Act which helped all Americans and put a stop to the "good old boy system" that affected not only so called "minorities" but affected whites who did not have the "connections" with companies, government, etc., and could not get their foot in the door. Politicians had their selected few to become politicians, companies had their selected few to join their companies, so on so forth.

It is not a liberal issue - it is an ignorant issue for those who are not familiar with the harrassment and discrimination against whites as well. Learn to read your history.

Jim Crow alive? HAH! When I went to the polls to hand out literature in North Carolina for primaries and the election last year I saw about 50-50% black/white and some others enter and vote without any issues. None. Nobody was asked for ID, nobody was stopped. We had pleasant conversations with anyone who took literature. And blacks don't exclusively vote Democrat as I was the Republican precinct volunteer. Many conservative Christian black voters were more than happy to talk, and then vote. With little kids in tow to show them how this process works. The ONLY place I saw voter intimidation was in Philadelphia where Black Panthers wielding batons threatened people entering polls. Get your facts straight. Whole busloads of minorities came to the polls with smiles and were greeted graciously. Get over this garbage. My family has mixed race throughout and so do friends. The NEW South is not the North!

We need a quota system for election to Congress. As well as media anchors and other fields. African-Americans should be given more of these jobs. Look at NBC, CBS, or ABC nightly news. 98% white.

Michael – please. Anyone who lives in this country and ever buys anything or lives in any kind of residence pays taxes. Federal income taxes are not the only taxes. Though I pay plenty in federal income taxes, I believe I pay more in sales and property taxes. By your rule we'd be letting non-citizens vote.

@Jefe: " I do not want the fate of my nation being decided by this theoretical governor, using the power he wields from the State of Florida, to negatively impact the citizens of the State of Illinois."

Well, I don't want people who favour strong central governments to negatively impact those of us who think of governments as arrogant, incompetent, intruders into the body politic of the nation.

80 percent of whites in the South voted vor McCain. That shows prejudice is alive and too well in Dixie.

Hey John Die, last time I checked, George W. Bush only appointed 2 justices to the Court. Also the last time I checked there are a total of 9 justices. George Bush's appointments had little to do with this ruling. It's become the liberal way to blame Bush for everything, even when you have no idea what on earth you are talking about.

@Jefe: " I do not want the fate of my nation being decided by this theoretical governor, using the power he wields from the State of Florida, to negatively impact the citizens of the State of Illinois."

Well, I don't want people who favour strong central governments to negatively impact those of us who think of governments as arrogant, incompetent, intruders into the body politic of the nation.

love this ruling

Eighty percent of whites in the South voted for McCain. Prejudice is alive and too well in Dixie.

unanimous vote ........apparently some of you geniuses can't read either..........it has nothing to do with Scalia or the GOP........It's Ginsberg and her cromies....wake up and see the light !!!!!

This article is misleading and the comments are indicative of developing "kneejerk" reaction culture in America. The Court did NOT void the Voting Rights Act in ANY way, shape or form. All of these liberal outcries of racism are from people who know nothing about the way our government works, and are too lazy to read the actual ruling to attempt to understand it. The headline needs to be changed because it is VERY misleading.

The description of the Court's decision above is not really accurate. The court expressly did not pass on the constitutionality of the law.

Will the supremes look into the black thugs who intimidated voters in Philly?

Bobby Byrd on his best day never even attempted that one.

Obama victim, since when has voter discrimination and disenfranchisement been Constitutional?

Margret – use the internet to research. CNN doesn't have to do it for you.

Jessica – intimidation was only part of the problem on why these laws were enacted – poll taxes and other unconstitutional standards made up by the states and local communities were used to ensure that only white males were the ones voting.

It's funny to see all this "Constitution 1 Liberals 0" stuff.

The fifteenth and nineteenth amendments to the USC give all Americans the right to vote regardless of race, sex, creed etc. So really, in pulling back oversight of areas with the most history of voter intimidation (which is why the most oversight is placed there) it becomes "SCOTUS 1 Constitution 0"

Hey Obama victim
Youre delusional, I'm 99% sure white and pissed off and a closet racist. If the Constitution was put in front of you, it would take someone to explain what it means and how it is applicable.
Youre just a sorry hater, and a loser. Suck it up for once and be a man.

Love the misleading headline.

The law was *not* ruled unconstitutional. Not even close. This particular application of it was ruled unconstitutional. There's a huge difference.

This is what happens when you try to cover legal issues on the politics blog.

@Ben

It's you that need to wake up and smell the coffee. If you think Acorn is the thing that gave Obama his 6 million vote advantage, YOU are delusional. At most, Acorn submitted fraudulant voter registration APPLICATIONS. These were by workers of ACorn, who were paid by the application, thus creating applations for "micky mouse", etc..

Applications don't lead to votes necessarily. The supervisors of elections are responsible for validating these applications. Only THEN can they be turned into voter id's, which are needed to vote. Pull your head out of your conspiracy hole and smell the fresh air.

Less Federal government control for once! It seems that the Feds are changing into a dictatorship these days, glad to see something that flys in the face of this change.

But PLEASE, Please, please, would the governments please require I.D.s to vote??? No identification means anyone could claim the vote of someone registered. With our low voter turnouts, ever wonder how many foreign governments attempted an influence on an election?

We are worse than Iranean's government, so let's stop acting like we are the prototype of democracy. How can we judge the others whereas our Supreme Court is refusing the basic rigth to the minorities?

maybe it will keep ACORN (or whatever they decide to change their name to.....this weekend they anounced ...from Sicily..no need to suspect organized crime from there........there is no Mafia...that they were changing their name to "Community Organizers International" ) will be kept out of election processes. You know..the folks that made sure the starting lineup for the Dallas Cowboys were registered to vote in Las Vegas. The only ones screaming about racism are liberal progressives, who NEED racism as a source of turmoil to keep us from focusing on the REAL issues, like where our money is being spent by our government.

This issue here is one of proportionality, not black and white. Congress singles out 16 states because of clear bias against voting rights of citizens, but that was decades ago. The Court decided that such specific provisions are not proper, but they did not strike it down. They gave the states the right to challenge the provisions, i.e. prove that they should not be closely monitored or make the Feds show that they should.

This is a good illustration of the complexity of Supreme Court actions – it's not always about black and white interprpetation of the law – it's about how the Constitution is applied. It requires interpretation of the mix of states rights and individual rights and how to properly insure both.

The sour grapes guys should read ammendment 9 and 10. It is clearly stated that the Federal Government only has the power and capability that States give to it. It appears that the Justices read the law very clearly. This is the kind of thing that caused 37 states (so far) to pass State's Rights legislation. At least the Justices are paying attention to this.

Sounds like you have to bring a case after a law is passed rather than having it reviewed prior to going in effect. That may leave the door open for some BS, but you can still call them on it. You just have to go thru the courts first. That doesn't really undo the laws or the oversight.

Libs need to wake up and understand that there is no constitutionally protected right to vote in a federal election. The sooner you understand this, the sooner we can be about the business of deciding who should vote and who shouldn't.

This is a distraction issue. It's very clever and appears to be controversial, but it is not. I want to know more about why one governmental wing is asking another to dismiss the case of Geronimos bones being returned to his family, from whom they have been stolen by the yale society kennedy was killed for speaking out against, you know the one that bush and his "opponent" kerry are members of. Self serving silver spooned elites , sounds like a recipe for leadership to me, wink wink

What difference does it make? You think our elections are not rigged? Give me a break plaaaease. Our election process is just as crooked as Iran. Take a closer look at the last few presidental elections for case in point. As Stalin once said, those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything!

I hear words like 'disenfranchisement' and 'racist' being thrown around by the usual liberals. Asking for a form of I.D. (drivers license, id card) is not asking too much for someone to cast a vote. If anyone can go in and cast a vote without identification then what is the point of verifying in the first place? ACORN showed us what happens when you let anyone get involved in the election process without verifying identities. You have 5 months to get an I.D. card to vote in the 2010 election and 2 years for 2012. Get off your lazy behind and get and I.D.!! No excuses whatsoever.

Being too stupid to register and vote has nothing to do with discrimination.

Now if we can only get those that do vote to actually understand what they are voting for, like unsustainable socialized healthcare, jobless stimulus packages and taxpayer funded political paybacks. My how the progressively under educated are failing America's future generations.

CNN's post is just plain wrong on two counts. First, the Court did NOT rule the provision unconstitutional - it ruled that the district could take advantage of an opt-out provision that is part of the law and sent the case back to the lower court. Second, the ruling was not unanimous - it was 8-1 with Justice Thomas dissenting because he wanted to declare the pre-clearance provision unconstitutional.

I agree with Obama Victim,for I too am an Obama Victim.
Constitution 1 , Liberals ZERO

I am tired of people using the worn out adage, "The states are better at regulating than the federal government." If you want to promote prejudice and incompetence–maybe. If your leader is the Grand Dragon rather than the President–maybe. If you prefer bubba law over common sense law–Maybe.

I have lived in the South for 9 years and can testify that it is NOT NOT NOT better regulated than the Federal Government.

Best news I've heard so far today. Let's just hope it continues.

Too True For You – If you don't think ACORN had an influence on the last election, you're delusional. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Its not about Liberal or Conservative black or white..this strictly about the constitution. 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.......

Do we have to go into the streets and risk brutal injury or maybe even DEATH to get equal protection/JUSTICE under the American Constitution???
It sounds to me like this should have been a NATIONAL law, not one used to punish a few states, but to insure equality in ALL states...

Am I missing something?

This is quite unfortunante . . . Jim Crow is still alive and well here in the deep south, its just become more sophisticated in its application. This was one of the last pieces of legislation with the real ability to influence states that historically and routinely disenfranchise minority groups and this ruling is akin to the Union Troops being removed from the south after the Civil War leading to pronounced segregationist policies.

Shocking! Does ANYONE see the irony in this, as Iran citizens fight for their rights in voting...he we are demminishing ours. Makes no sense at all. I am old enough to remember the days of fear for some at the voting booth....that should never happen again. What is the assurance of protection now?

yes, the 10th Amendment may be begining it's resurrection!

Too True for You: You are a flat out liar!

It is embarrassing that our local and state leaders have not yet figured out a way to register voters, hold an election, and count votes accurately. We have been wrangling with this issue for 70 years. We can count almost everything but votes in the oldest democracy in the world. If those folks had done there job, the Supreme Court would have no need to meddle.

If your local government is like mine, then your local representatives do not really care about government; they only care about who gets the contract.

Yes because those southern states are always willing to help minorities vote! Racist scumbags on the supreme court are all for that though.

A 1965 law is suddenly now considered unconstitutional? We dismantled "outdated" banking regulations, the ones put in place to prevent another 1930 style banking failure and GUESS WHAT? There has been a 1930s style banking failure. Certain elements in our society want to control votes and election outcomes – 2000, 2004, Minnesota come to mind. Federal law is the only guarantee of civil rights in this country and it's a sad day.

Too many stupid people who do not understand the Constitution.

Time will tell whether we have grown as a nation and can equally apply the one man one vote rule without extreme federal oversight sight of states which have a historic track record of denying voter rights for numerous reasons. Bottom line, this one will be revisited in the future I am sure.

If anyone has a problem with the ruling, dont start hating on the court, call your legislators and ask them to change the constitution. the courts are not elected and do not have that option. they are just doing their job.

I wonder, why people in their own communities can't be involved in their own local elections, to ensure fairness occurs? 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.

My guess is, this move should motivate THOSE who truly feel discrimination is occuring, to get off their butts – just like the Iranians are doing now, and fight for their own vote to be counted.

STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT VOTER INTIMIDITATION, AND GET YOUR BUTT OUT THERE AND INTIDMIDATE BY VOTING!

I hope Scalia's activism is nearing an end. They have turned the court against the common man with the pro business appointments of the GOP. This court legislates from the bench far too much and this political negotiation shows it. It is either constitutional or not.

The old white boys down south will love this ruling.

Figures this ruling was for TEXAS were they execute innocent people. What is wrong with this country? Limit who can vote, no DNA testing, fraudulent elections (2000 and 2004). .Is this the USA or Iran, I'm a bit confused these days.

Now they need to ban people that don't pay taxes from voting. If you don't have a stake in government you shouldn't have a say in it either.

Can this article be any less clear? Sure, I get the point that the Supreme Court ruling tap-danced around a broader issue in their ruling, but where's the link to details about the case? Where's a link to more information about the 1965 law, which many people who read articles on CNN may not know the details about? The third paragraph down is sooooo unclear! Was it deliberately worded so that all meaning was eliminated from it? I mean, come on! This is supposed to be CNN.com, not "my blogger". I expect better reporting from you guys. Why didn't you start the article by explaining what the broader issues are, then talk about the Supreme Court's ruling skirting it, then talk about why this should matter to your readers?

The voting rights act is out dated anyways. Everyone knows that if you are a citizen of the United States you have the right to vote. This Act now only promotes racism and is no longer useful. The problem we have when it comes to voting is the number of voting booths.

O, great. Give the local governments the right to conduct elections as they see fit. What a grand idea. Now the minorities can be cut out of the process and there's nothing they can do about it. The votes get mysteriously lost, or more votes are counted than are eligible voters, addresses that are in reality park benches, people's legal standing challenged at the voting booths..... There are so many ways a person can be shut out of the process, or so many ways that the results can be rigged. Taking oversight away is asking for trouble. Truly fair elections are hard enough to achieve as it is, even with the best oversight, but to take away oversight will ensure that voter fraud will not go away soon.

Please change the headline and link. They make an incorrect statement of fact and do not agree with the story. The Court did not rule that the provision itself was unconstitutional. They ruled that the way the provision was being applied was unconstitutional because overbroad.

9-0. dig it.

Because we all know that discrimination only takes place in 16 states, right?

This decision means that the same oversight applies in all 50 states equally. Imagine that...equality, without regard to racial or ethnic demographics....what a novel idea!!

Which body is the Supreme Court answerable to? The Council of Experts or the Supreme Leader? That is, the GOP or the Family Research Council?

No, it is "right wing fundamentalists 1, constitution 0".

Leave to the Courts conservatives to encourage the return of Jim Crow laws.

So we will contunue to have white's do things like that, because in all honesty , In this country I have yet to expierence any other race that would disinfranchise other's when it actually comes to voting ,

All states should be regulated. We're talking about federal elections. Imagine if you lived in Illinois, and the governor of Florida had a brother who was running for office. Now further imagine that brother was an anti-American fanatic, hell-bent on destroying the nation. I do not want the fate of my nation being decided by this theoretical governor, using the power he wields from the State of Florida, to negatively impact the citizens of the State of Illinois.

I'm not sure I understand this ruling. I HOPE the ruling is only saying that local communities have more authority to handle voter discrimination cases and not that the federal government no longer has oversight...

Compromise? The job of the court is not suppose to compromise on the law, its either constitutional or unconstitutional.

Excellent! Common sense prevailed!

We need some new Supremes.
First they say the government can take your house, even though you paid for it.
Last week, they said prisoners should not automatically get the right to DNA testing to prove they are innocent.
Now this.
Do they care about the Little Guy?

Let the unraveling of the 40 year gains, begin! This is too bad for many that because we have an African-American president, many perceive that we have arrived at racial neutrality. The past few weeks of killing on the basis of race, religion and other factors should prove otherwise. We in the civil rights community have much work to do!

Well, this must be celebration day for the republicans. They have fought very hard for the disenfranchisement of as many non-white, non-fundamentalist voters as possible.

So put another notch in the republicans belt of underhanded ways to influence elections. Right next to that criminal Tom DeLay's unprecendented Texas gerrymandering, the outrages of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, and the totally manufactured propaganda about ACRON affecting voting that gets the willfully misinformed right so riled up.

Jeesh. Is the government just now realizing that our election process needs an overhaul? With the debacle going on in Minnesota and after the 2000 election, it should have rung a bell in someone's head that the system is flawed. By the way, convicted felons should be allowed to vote. I feel that if a person has served their time, they should be allowed to have a vote. If they are not allowed to vote, why should they be taxed? The system is totally unfair!

Sounds like we are going backward.

Congress isn't going to be happy about this one but we can't keep fighting the political battles that were settled 50 years ago. Also, states can do a much better job of regulating themselves than the federal government so hopefully this is a new trend that will spill over into other areas of governance.

About darn time...now if they will also allow challenges to voter identification restricitons we can get moving forward.

We need to be sure that the people who vote are legally qualified to vote so that elections are fair and we can have confidence in the system. This isn't about keeping valid voters out for political purposes no matter what the liberals say. It's about ensuring that democracy is not manipulated by ANYONE.

Way over due.., especially in light of Obama's justice department dropping the voter intimidation case against the Black Panter's of Philly.

Nope! You read today's date correctly. It is 2009 and the courts are still trying to ensure that "certain voters" get to vote in this country. As an FYI for those of you that think that this type of stuff was over and done with in the '60s. There's a reason for things like Affirmative Action, et al, if it was up to certain individuals we'd still be picking cotton.

Another "Great Society" contribution to American life fails, but don't worry dear leader has a lot more coming our way. Is this the second Johnson administration or what.

As we hypocritically criticize elections in Iran, our own "mullahs" here in the US (the ones who selected Bush as president after Bush LOST the 2000 election) rule in favor of curtailing the right of minorities to vote in our own country. I hope the Iranian mullahs aren't paying attention; they could very rightly criticize US for our election problems.

Constitution 1 Liberals O