The RW hate Holder in part because of his defense of voting rights

[ProSense]

High turnout rates are cause to celebrate, not gut, the Voting Rights Act

DAVID GANS — Special to The Telegraph

Sometime before the end of June, the Supreme Court will decide Shelby County v. Holder, a constitutional challenge to the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act, one of the act’s most important guarantees against racial discrimination in voting.

Shelby County has argued that the act is unnecessary and outdated and has urged the Supreme Court to hold it unconstitutional on that basis. With the court’s decision looming, a number of recent commentators have suggested that, in light of recent voter turnout data, the Voting Rights Act is no longer needed. They are wrong.

For example, in this week’s Wall Street Journal, examining what he calls the “good news about race and voting,” Andrew Kohut, the founding director of the Pew Research Center, argues that in recent presidential elections very few citizens, whatever their race, have reported difficulties with going to the polls in order to exercise their right to vote. Kohut notes that in the last several presidential elections, African American voter turnout has steadily increased. Based on the “good news” from this small slice of evidence, Kohut suggests that opponents of the Voting Rights Act could argue “the legislation has accomplished its objective of ending racial discrimination in voting and is no longer needed.”

The good news about increased turnout among African Americans is worthy of celebration, but it is no reason to scrap the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act, which for the last 48 years has played a critical role in realizing the Constitution’s command of voting equality and preventing state-sponsored voting discrimination.

- more -

http://www.macon.com/2013/05/23/2488810/high-turnout-rates-are-cause-to.html

[Laelth]

1. An editorial from my hometown paper. Nifty.

We in Bibb County, Georgia, have a Voting Rights Act preclearance action pending before the Department of Justice as we speak. If the SCOTUS guts the Act, it would be disastrous for us.

I sincerely hope that the Justice Department comes through for us before the SCOTUS rules on this. I definitely agree with the sentiment expressed in the editorial. We still need the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

-Laelth

[ProSense]

2. Your hometown. Cool! n/t