The Supreme Court hears arguments today on a case that may well lead to the dismantling of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires many states, cities, and counties, primarily in the South, to get preclearance from the Department of Justice before changing election laws in ways that could affect minority voting rights.
The argument for doing away with the section is straightforward: The South has come a long way since 1965, and it is unfair to keep singling the region out for scrutiny.
if they have evolved from the jim crow era then what harm is scrutiny, they are well aware of those hanger on's that can't wait to bring it back, the T-Pers "we want to take our country back" what does that sound like? back is when they had uncontested rule Mr. Jams Crow law of the land.
Dr. Brenda Williams begs to differ.A family-practice internist in Sumter, South Carolina, she and her geriatrician husband, Joseph Williams, run a local nonprofit encouraging parents to marry, and back in 2007 they decided to also help townspeople register to vote. Brenda went to housing projects, the jail, anywhere she was likely to find disenfranchised people. She redoubled her efforts in the spring of 2011, when Governor Nikki Haley signed legislation requiring government-issued photo identification at the polls.Williams began to help people secure photo IDs, and when she realized how arduous and costly that was for many residents—especially those who lacked birth certificates, or had their names misspelled on them—she shared her observations in multiple letters to Attorney General Eric Holder. Her efforts were vindicated two days before Christmas, when the Department of Justice denied preclearance of the law, sending the matter to the federal courts.
make no mistake there have been those who evolved those who tolerate and those hell bent on returning to days of old, they call themselves TEA PARTY. there are those in the SCOTUS that still harbor those ideologies that the right wing has always espoused and now thy have the majority on that court, one good vote for "we the people" does not mean a sustained vote for all things progressive.
