. . . the Voting Rights Act, itself, was constructed to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The law was passed in 1965 to ensure that all eligible voters in America have an equal chance at casting a ballot.
You should also know that, as recently as last month, the D.C. upheld the constitutionality of sections of the Voting Rights which deal with reporting requirements of counties with histories of discrimination. The argument had been that, today's social landscape doesn't resemble the circumstances in 1965 which led to the passage of the protections. The court did not think the protections should be subject to some disagreement about whether discrimination still existed, or, was still pernicious enough to warrant voter protection by the federal government. They found that the protections under the Act were still necessary. That should tell you all you need to know about the prospect of your argument prevailing.
Feel free to argue around it all you want. Folks who evidently agree with you tried to have the Voting Rights Act annulled and lost . . . just last month.
also:
(2009) In a surprisingly united decision, the Supreme Court voted—8-to-1—to uphold the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One case challenged Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act shortly after it had been signed into law in 2006 by former President George W. Bush and a bipartisan Congress. The only justice to dissent from this conclusion was Clarence Thomas, who argued that the time had arrived to overhaul Section 5. This is not the first time that Thomas has stood alone in challenging the constitutionality of a provision designed to protect minority rights.
read: http://www.theroot.com/views/we-still-need-voting-rights-act
= new reply since forum marked as read