![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.commondreams.org\/sites\/commondreams.org\/files\/imagecache\/headline_image\/article_images\/aptopix_supreme_court_voting_rights_29866575.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
In an earlier demonstration, protesters pleaded with the high court to ‘protect their vote’ and preserve the important oversight provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act. (Photo: Evan Vucci\/AP) <\/span><\/span>“What the Supreme Court did was to put a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act,” said <\/a>Congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis, following the news of the vote, which gutted the Act from protective provisions that had previously allowed courts to block discriminatory attempts to pass voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.<\/p>\nThis ruling “threatens to make second-class citizens out of millions of Americans,” added<\/a> watchdog group, Common Cause.<\/p>\n Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cHubris is a fit word for today\u2019s demolition of the Voting Rights Act,\u201d wrote Ginsburg, adding, \u201cWhen confronting the most constitutionally invidious form of discrimination, and the most fundamental right in our democratic system, Congress\u2019 power to act is at its height.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The abolished legislation, Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, determines which states and localities are required to get federal approval before changing any voting laws based on those locations having a history of racial discrimination. Previous to the ruling, nine states and parts of seven others were required to obtain the approval.<\/p>\n Section 5 of the act, which sets the pre-clearance requirement, was not itself struck down though, without Section 4, “is without significance,” writes<\/a> the New York Times<\/em>.<\/p>\n By keeping Section 5, Congress is technically able to pass a new bill based on contemporary data\u2013according to the ruling\u2013for determining which states should be covered. However, according<\/a> to SCOTUSblog<\/em>, with the staunchly partisan gridlock in our current Congress, this “will be exceptionally difficult politically.”<\/p>\n And according to analysts, “the chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal oversight is required are small,” the New York Times <\/em>reports.<\/p>\n \u201cIn practice, in reality, it\u2019s probably the death knell of this provision,\u201d noted<\/a> SCOTUSblog <\/em>publisher, Tom Goldstein.<\/p>\n The case was brought before the high court after Shelby County, Alabama filed a suit <\/a>on the basis that Section 5 had “outlived its validity and unfairly targets certain states,” after the Justice Department vetoed a 2008 attempt by the county to redraw one of its electoral maps effectively reducing the number of black voters in that district from 70.9 percent to 29.5 percent.<\/p>\n “The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the Voting Rights Act has proven effective,” lamented<\/a> the dissenting justices.<\/p>\n “Discrimination at the ballot box is a real problem and causes real harm to our democracy,” added Rea Carey, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in a statement<\/a> blasting the ruling. “This ruling is a major step backwards in the ongoing fight for a truly free and fair democracy and democratic system.”<\/p>\n _____________________<\/p>\n This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License<\/p>\n