Go To SPOXTalk.comHome

     Total Page Views
We received
page views since Nov 2004



Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

     Shop Amazon

     Stories By Topic
Vermont News

A Judge Lynching
All My Aliens
Art News
Health News
Paranormal News
Political News
Sci-fi News
Science News
Spiritual News
The News
Travel News
Unusual News
Vermont News

· Home
· 007
· Ask_Shabby
· Content
· Dates
· Downloads
· Feedback
· Fine_Print
· Forums
· Fun_Stuff
· Game_World
· Home_Grown
· Journal
· Link_To
· Private Messages
· Recommend Us
· Reviews
· Search
· Site_Credits
· SPOX_Talk
· Stone_Tarot
· Stores_Shop
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Tell_Us
· Top 10
· Top Stories
· Topics
· Weather_Station
· Web Links
· Your Account

     Who's Online
There are currently, 77 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

     Monthly Quote
“If a man has an apartment stacked to the ceiling with newspapers we call him crazy. If a woman has a trailer house full of cats we call her nuts. But when people pathologically hoard so much cash that they impoverish the entire nation, we put them on the cover of Fortune magazine and pretend that they are role models.”
-– B. Lester

     Link to us!
AlienLove Logos

Add Your Link To Us!

     Anti-War Webs
Anti-War Web Ring
[<<<] [ list ] [???] [ join ] [>>>]

 The News: Supreme Court Strikes Down Current Coverage Formula to Voting Rights Act

PoliticsFrom aclu.org

NEW YORK – In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down the coverage formula used to determine which states and political subdivisions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a civil rights law that has protected the right to vote for people of color since 1965. Importantly, however, today's decision did not strike down Section 5 itself, leaving it to Congress to devise a new coverage formula.

The American Civil LibertiesUnion intervened in the case on behalf of the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP and several residents of Shelby County whose voting rights are directly impacted by the county's challenge.

"The court's decision presents a real challenge to Americans' fundamental right to vote. It is also a significant departure from the Supreme Court's previous four decisions over four decades recognizing that Congress is in the best position to judge the value of the preclearance requirement and where it is most needed," said Laughlin McDonald, special counsel and director emeritus of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. ...

Shop Amazon with AlienLove
Help Support AlienLove - Shop Amazon

"As Congress recognized when it reenacted the preclearance requirement with overwhelming bipartisan majorities in 2006, strong federal legislation remains necessary to ensure that all Americans can exercise the right to vote free from racial discrimination," said Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office. "That fact is as true in today as it was seven years ago."

Because the court's decision strikes down only the coverage formula, but not the preclearance requirement itself, it is now up to Congress to draw a new formula that continues to protect the rights of minority voters.

"Today's decision does not change the fact that voting discrimination remains unlawful," said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "We will continue to challenge laws that erect barriers to the ballot."

"I am very upset by this ruling. Preclearance is the single greatest tool that has helped make sure people have the right to vote. It's important for people to be able to continue voting without distractions and barriers. Unfortunately voter disfranchisement still exists. We even saw it in the last election," said Pastor Kenneth Dukes, a Shelby County resident who was represented by the ACLU. "While I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, I know that Democrats and Republicans have supported preclearance over and over again and know that they will again," Dukes said. "In 2006, you had Republicans and Democrats – who never agree on anything – agree on that."

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of our nation's most critical federal civil rights statutes. It ensures state and local governments don't pass laws or policies that deny American citizens the equal right to vote based on race. Section 5, a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, requires certain jurisdictions that have a history of discriminatory voting practices to secure advance approval from the federal government before changing their election laws. These jurisdictions may "bail out" of Section 5 by maintaining a "clean record" – no evidence of discrimination in voting rights – for 10 years. More than 100 jurisdictions have done so in recent years.

© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004


[25 June 2013]

Discuss this article in our forums.

Listen To SPOXTalk.

     Related Links
· More about Politics
· News by Blue1moon

Most read story about Politics:
Vermont Side Judge Roles

     Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Very Good


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

"Supreme Court Strikes Down Current Coverage Formula to Voting Rights Act" | Login/Create an Account | 0 comments
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Site Copyright AlienLove 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
AlienLove is part of Scifillian Inc.
and SpoxTalk.com

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
Page Generation: 0.05 Seconds