Question of the Week: Is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Unconstitutional?

The question is now before the U.S. Supreme Court in a challenge brought forth by Shelby County, Alabama.

The United States Supreme Court later this year is expected to rule on whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.

The case is before the high court due to a challenge by Shelby County, Alabama, which argues the section is unconstitutional because the calculation — based on voting turnout and registration data from the early 1970s — used by the federal government to determine which states must comply with the law is outdated.

Shelby County argues that the overt methods of voter intimidation to block black residents in the county and the state from exercising their right to vote no longer exist in the state. 

Section 5 requires several states, including Georgia, to have any changes to its voting practices approved by the U.S. Justice Department. Those states were chosen based on their history of blatant voter intimidation practices towards its minority citizens. 

Tell us: do you think Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional? 

People are Crazy March 05, 2013 at 05:05 PM
How could we possibly think or know anything? Ha ha I read Section 5 three times, and I still have no clue what it is saying or why it was enacted. I would either lose my reason of thought out of boredom or because this language makes no sense to the common voter. I do think all government documents/laws should come with a description of what the heck it means to non-attorney/non-politician individuals. Or here is a thought. Write them so that someone with reasonable intelligence can understand them. Shoudn't we be past the era of trying to whereas and therefore people into confusion so they WONT or cant form an opinion? :)
Frank Jones March 06, 2013 at 05:53 PM
The voting right act is far from being obsolete and should actually be expanded. Say what? That's right, expanded! In todays modern, electronic voting and demographic analysis gerrymandering environment, the one person one vote is being circumvented not only by race but also party affiliation.
Mike Lowry March 07, 2013 at 02:06 PM
Actually, having the Justice Department serve as the arbiter is a case of the cure being worse than the illness. In today's world, DOJ serves mostly to prevent any fixes to massive vote fraud and to racially filter every action. The facts regarding racial balance and voting rights inequality don't match the rhetoric at all. Massachusetts does not fall under Section V, but has a much worse racial voter balance (i.e., percentage of blacks registered to vote) than GA, AL and MS. Section V was unconstitutional when it was passed, and may finally be declared so by SCOTUS.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »