Supreme Court Does The Right Thing Strikes Down Key Element of Voting Rights Act of 1965

Supreme Court Strikes Down Heart of Voting Rights Act:'Our Country Has Changed' YAHOO NEWS


Triadwatch in the past years has had multiple blog post on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and what needed to be done for example

Bailout from Voting Rights Act

DOJ Pre Clearence Submission from Guilford County in Regards To The Outdated Voting Rights Act of 1965 , SCRIBD Version Embedded

here is a little bit from the article linked above

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act—reauthorized by Congress for an additional 25 years in 2006—gives the federal government the ability to pre-emptively reject changes to election law in states and counties that have a history of discriminating against minority voters. The law covers nine states and portions of seven more, most of them in the South. The formula used to decide which states are subject to this special scrutiny (set out in Section 4 of the law) is based on decades-old voter turnout and registration data, the justices ruled, which is unfair to the states covered under it. States that had a discriminatory poll test in the 1960s and low turnout among minority voters must seek special permission from the federal government to change their election laws, even though many of these states now have near-equal voter turnout rates between minorities and whites.

The court has effectively now put the ball back in Congress' court, writing in its decision that it is up to Congress to write a new formula that is based on current data. States or counties that fit the new formula could still be subject to federal "preclearance" of changes to their elections procedures. It remains to be seen whether Congress, which is now more partisanly divided than in 2006, would tackle the challenge of creating a new rubric to find and eradicate racial discrimination at the polls. The president called on Congress to pass legislation addressing the ruling in a statement on Tuesday.

As you can see from the above map in the Triad area only Rockingham and Guilford County were subject to the preclearance of the Voting Rights Act which to me was patently unfair using outdated data to determine this. Can anyone please send me a story in the past 10 or 20 years where minorities were denied to vote in Guilford County?  I am sure in the next few days plenty of lefties will be up in arms over this ruling but to me it was outdated and needs a complete overhaul to be more in tune with the times .

Voting Rights Act Chart Chief Roberts used in ruling from Business Insider

 

Look at the gap difference from 1965 to 2004 in these key states that are a part of the Voting Rights Act. Progress has been made in many states over the past 40 years and Chief Roberts said this in the article

 

"But Roberts said that the pre-clearance system for changes to voting laws no longer made sense — pointing to original conditions of pre-clearance included in the Voting Rights Act that were no longer necessary due to the gains in minority voter registration.
"Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices," he wrote. "The formula captures States by reference to literacy tests and low voter registration and turnout in the 1960s and early 1970s. But such tests have been banned nationwide for over 40 years. And voter registration and turnout numbers in the covered States have risen dramatically in the years since."

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. made a great ruling in this case .