- b.c.,
Here we go again. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear challenges to the Voting Rights Act of '65 that has be renewed four times since, the argument being that key provisions in the law are "obsolete", in particular those dealing with how certain states and districts can (and cannot) go about making changes to election procedures:
Supreme Court to hear key voting rights case - First Read
Pehaps in hearing the case the mostly CONSERVATIVE Court might consider actions on the parts of many (in this recent election) to undermine and disenfranchise the rights of millions of voters by changing the location of polling places, curtailing hours, removing voters from rolls for questionable reasons, and the like.
Though I must say I AM in agreement with ONE thing the law's challengers are saying - The Voting Rights Act IS outdated and DOES target some states and localities while ignoring others.
IMO, the act needs to be revamped so that it APPLIES TO EVERY STATE IN THE UNION. That, at least, should do away with some of the bases for their challenges to the law.
Supreme Court to hear key voting rights case - First Read
Pehaps in hearing the case the mostly CONSERVATIVE Court might consider actions on the parts of many (in this recent election) to undermine and disenfranchise the rights of millions of voters by changing the location of polling places, curtailing hours, removing voters from rolls for questionable reasons, and the like.
Though I must say I AM in agreement with ONE thing the law's challengers are saying - The Voting Rights Act IS outdated and DOES target some states and localities while ignoring others.
IMO, the act needs to be revamped so that it APPLIES TO EVERY STATE IN THE UNION. That, at least, should do away with some of the bases for their challenges to the law.