Voting Rights Act must be Fully Restored!

Everyone's vote should count, and, be counted!

“Hubris is a fit word for today’s demolition of the Voting Rights Act,” wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissenting opinion on the Supreme Court's demolition of important parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act on June 25, 2013.

With the news of the Supreme Court decision, my first thought was, "Oh No!!  Say it isn't so!!"

Demos, an advocacy group for the protection of democracy in theUSA, stated:

"...the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, upending a law that has been central to our nation’s commitment to eradicating the shameful legacy of racial discrimination in voting, especially in the deep South. The Court declared that the so-called “coverage formula” used to determine which states should be required to obtain preclearance for changes in voting laws was unconstitutional, but that Congress retains the authority to update the coverage formula. Demos, along with other members of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, filed an amicus brief in the case, Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, urging the Court to uphold the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.", June 25, 2013,  http://www.demos.org/press-release/high-courts-decision-striking-down-key-provision-voting-rights-act-1965-cannot-stand

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law reported:

"On June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, removing a critical tool to combat racial discrimination in voting. Under Section 5 of the landmark civil rights law, jurisdictions with a history of discrimination must seek pre-approval of changes in voting rules that could affect minorities. This process, known as “preclearance,” blocks discrimination before it occurs.

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Court invalidated Section 4 — which determines the states and localities covered by Section 5 — arguing that current conditions require a new coverage formula. As a practical matter this means Section 5 is inoperable until Congress enacts a new coverage formula, which the decision invited lawmakers to do. Without Section 5, state legislators may try to launch a new wave of discriminatory voting measures, some of which were previously blocked or deterred by the law, according to a Brennan Center report released just weeks before the decision. It is now on Congress to act in a bipartisan and swift manner to devise a formula that will enable the Voting Rights Act to effectively protect voters once again."  http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voting-rights-act-resource-page

The ACLU contends,

"Voting rights are under attack in this country as state legislatures nationwide pass voter suppression laws under the pretext of preventing voter fraud and safeguarding election integrity. These voter suppression laws take many forms, and collectively lead to significant burdens for eligible voters trying to exercise their most fundamental constitutional right."  http://www.aclu.org/voter-suppression-america

From 2000 on, the Supreme Court has intervened on the side of voter suppression, disenfranchisement by folks undemocratic in every sense of the word!!  And this, after widely reported instances of voter disenfranchisement, not only in 2000 but 2004, as well.  Without such voter disenfranchisement and vote suppression, it can be contended that neither 2000 or 2004 presidential elections were fair recflections of the voters' will.

The Voting Rights Act must be restored in its entirety!