What Changes After Supreme Court Ruling On Voting Rights Act

"This morning in a much anticipated decision, the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Writing for a five-four majority, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that Congress' action to protect minority voting rights in nine states was based on outdated data, and the formula used to determine which areas were subject to federal oversight was thus unconstitutional."

"Civil rights activists say the law is still needed to ensure fair political representation and access to voting; opponents say the times have changed, and a law that holds some states to different standards than others is no longer needed. If you live in a state covered by this part of the Voting Rights Act, what changes for you? Give us a call, 800-989-8255. Email us, [e-mail]. You can also join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION."

"Well, their view is that it's been so effective it's no longer needed, that in the 1960s something like 20 percent of blacks, six percent in Mississippi, were registered to vote. Now John Roberts, the chief justice, said African-American voted at roughly the same rates, sometimes at a higher rate, than whites in the southern states. So therefore, the reason that the Voting Rights Act was needed, this special scrutiny for the southern states, is no longer needed today,"

The Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, struck down the coverage formula of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that determined which jurisdictions required federal preclearance. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Congress relied on outdated data in extending the statute's special federal oversight for nine states. The ruling removes the formula that triggered review of voting-law changes in covered areas and could reduce federal scrutiny of election rules. Civil-rights advocates contend the statute remains necessary to protect minority voting access and representation. Opponents argue that voting patterns have changed and that differential treatment of states is no longer justified. The decision raises immediate questions about future voting-law changes in previously covered jurisdictions.

Read at www.npr.org