Now on ScienceBlogs: The Lights Stay On Inside a Black Hole!

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination
   

The Scientific Activist

Yes, the Voting Rights Act Is Still Relevant

From today's New York Times: WASHINGTON -- A special three-judge court ruled Friday that Congress acted constitutionally when it extended the law requiring sections of the country with a history of racial discrimination to get federal approval for any changes...

       

Search This Blog

This Blog and the Old Site



Pass It Along





submit to
reddit

The Scientific Activist

Profile

scientificactivistprofile.gif A postdoc by day and a scientific activist by night, Nick Anthis isn't letting his research in protein structure and function get in the way of defending scientific and social progress.

Subscribe via Email or RSS

Email Stay up to date on the latest from The Scientific Activist by email.

RSS See updates in real time with my RSS feed.

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Twitter

Other Stuff

Nick Anthis's Profile
Nick Anthis's Facebook profile





Add The Scientific Activist to your Technorati Favorites!

Add Scienceblogs to your Technorati Favorites!


« UK Detains Student for Studying Terrorism | Main | Israeli-Imposed Travel Restrictions Force Palestinians to Lose Fulbright Scholarships »

Yes, the Voting Rights Act Is Still Relevant

Category: Texascivil rightselections
Posted on: May 31, 2008 9:28 AM, by Nick Anthis

From today's New York Times:

WASHINGTON -- A special three-judge court ruled Friday that Congress acted constitutionally when it extended the law requiring sections of the country with a history of racial discrimination to get federal approval for any changes in voting procedures.

The unanimous decision upheld a central provision of the Voting Rights Act, which Congress initially passed in 1965 and has extended several times since, most recently for 25 years in 2006. Section 5 of the law prohibits several states, mostly in the South, and some local government agencies from changing their election practices without permission from the Justice Department or the courts.

This is my favorite part, though:

Each renewal of the law has been followed by a legal challenge from some state or local agency to this "preclearance" requirement. The latest challenge was undertaken by the board of a public utility near Austin, Tex., which said the requirement conferred a "badge of shame" over "conditions that existed 30 or more years ago but have long since been remedied."

Not to be a stickler or anything, but I'm pretty sure that it was a little more recently than thirty years ago (three days ago, to be precise) that I wrote about one of two major voting rights cases currently in progress in Texas. That case--involving various allegations of suppression of minority voters--comes out of Prairie View A&M University, only 100 miles away from the utility district quoted above (which is basically next door in Texas).

According to the Times, "from 1980 to 2000, the attorney general acted to block 421 voting changes that the Justice Department had found 'intentionally discriminatory.'" Based on those numbers, discriminatory voting laws are far from ancient history, but at least the federal government appears to be taking a proactive position.

Sphere: Related Content

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM