![\"Mario](\"http:\/\/admin.rt.com\/files\/news\/1f\/8d\/40\/00\/us-voting.jpg\")
<\/p>\nA divided US Supreme Court voided a central part of the Voting Rights Act, a law put in place during the Civil Rights movement to prevent historically racist states from creating obstacles to voting, Tuesday.<\/p>\n
\n Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the Supreme Court\u2019s opinion
\n in Shelby County vs. Holder<\/i> on Tuesday. The 5-4 decision,
\n evidence of clear partisan lines in the nation\u2019s highest court,
\n was celebrated by Southern states and criticized by President
\n Barack Obama for declaring federal oversight on state election
\n changes unconstitutional. Roberts did not specify which, if any,
\n part of the Constitution the rule violated.\n<\/p>\n
\n Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), invalidated by
\n Tuesday\u2019s decision, explained the formula used by Congress to
\n identify regions of the US subject to extra scrutiny when local
\n lawmakers try to change election rules. Section 4 was the
\n precursor to Section 5, which gives the federal government the
\n power to \u201cpreclear<\/i>\u201d any state or local changes in election
\n rules that could potentially prevent minorities from
\n voting.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\n Both the Justice Department and individual voters were able to
\n file suit if they believed a state or local municipality was
\n instituting a law that would put undue burden on a specific
\n demographic, a protection that saw its end on Monday.\u00a0
\n
Under the formula, Congress singled out states based on their
\n history of past abuses. Most of the states affected by the ruling
\n are in the South, where politicians frequently signed laws meant
\n to silence the black population by way of making their votes
\n count less through redistricting and other tactics. The VRA of
\n 1965 nullified the systemic discrimination allowed by the Jim
\n Crow laws, adopted in the century following the abolition of
\n slavery.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\n States that prevented African Americans from, in addition to
\n other infractions, registering to vote, voting of running for
\n office were singled out by Section 4.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\n The Supreme Court\u2019s majority ruled that, because the VRA was
\n enacted decades ago, Congress must use updated criteria to
\n determine which states are subject to the federal oversight. In a
\n seeming contradiction, the Court cited the VRA\u2019s success in
\n protecting an equal voting system as a reason to void Section
\n 4.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\n <\/p>\n
\n Roberts asserted that \u201cthings have changed dramatically<\/i>\u201d
\n over time. Since 1965 voter registration, voter turnout and the
\n number of African American political leaders have all vastly
\n increased, Roberts claimed, \u201cin large part because of the
\n VRA<\/i>.\u201d Yet Roberts and four other justices called for new
\n criteria not \u201cbased on decades-old data<\/i>\u201d and voter
\n suppression methods, such as literacy tests, that have been
\n rendered irrelevant by Section 4.\u00a0
\n
Roberts’ claims are wrong, though, some reporters pointed out on
\n the day.\n<\/p>\n
\n \u201cThe regions covered by the part of the Act that was struck
\n down, Section 4, have, in recent years, been twice as likely as
\n those not covered to have proven violations under other sections
\n of the Act<\/i>,\u201d wrote The New Yorker\u2019s Amy Davidson.\n<\/p>\n
\n Without a new formula for Section 4, which most experts agree is
\n unlikely after years of Congressional gridlock and polarization,
\n Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act cannot be implemented.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\n Roberts also wrote that Congress \u201ccannot justify the
\n considerable burdens created by Section 5<\/i>,\u201d despite
\n overwhelming numbers in each chamber voting to reauthorize the
\n VRA in 2006. In the seven years since that renewal, 31
\n discriminatory voting laws were blocked by Section 5, according
\n to The Nation magazine, with six of the nine southern states
\n covered by Section 4 enacting new voter suppression laws since
\n 2010.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\n \u201cTexas\u2019 voter ID law, which was blocked under Section 5 by a
\n federal court last year and could disenfranchise up to 800,000
\n registered voters without government-issued photo ID, will
\n immediately go into effect<\/i>,\u201d wrote Ari Berman in The Nation.
\n \u201cThe states of the Old Confederacy will return to the pre-1965
\n playbook, passing new voter suppression laws that can only be
\n challenged, after years of lengthy litigation, in often-hostile
\n Southern courts, with the burden of proof in those subject to
\n discrimination, rather than those doing the discriminating<\/i>.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\n ![\"Mario](\"http:\/\/rt.com\/files\/news\/1f\/8d\/40\/00\/us-voting-2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann, who serves in
\n one of the states previously covered by Section 4, announced
\n Tuesday that the \u201cprocess for implementation of Constitutional
\n Voter Identification begins today<\/i>.\u201d\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\n Chief Justice Roberts was joined in his opinion by Justices
\n Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel
\n Alito. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia
\n Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented. Each of the Justices in the
\n majority was appointed by a Republican president, while the
\n dissenters were appointed by Democrats. \u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\n President Obama said he was \u201cdeeply disappointed<\/i>\u201d by the
\n ruling.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\n \u201cHubris is a fit word for today\u2019s demolition of the VRA<\/i>,\u201d
\n Ginsburg wrote in her dissent. \u201cCongress approached the 2006
\n reauthorization of the VRA with great care and seriousness. The
\n same cannot be said of the Court\u2019s opinion today. The Court makes
\n no genuine attempt to engage with the massive legislative record
\n that Congress assembled \u2026 One would expect more from an opinion
\n striking at the heart of the Nation\u2019s signal piece of
\n civil-rights legislation<\/i>.\u201d\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\n Ginsburg, appointed by former president Bill Clinton in 1993, \n \u201cHis treatment of the 80-year-old Ginsburg, 17 years his \n Congressional leaders pledged discussions on Section 4 over the
\n noted that the \u201cracial polarization in voting<\/i>\u201d means the
\n issue is especially pressing today. While Ginsburg delivered her
\n remarks, though, Alito visibly rolled his eyes in dismissal,
\n leading to gasps from several audience members.
\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
\n senior and with 13 years more seniority, was a curious display of
\n judicial temperament, or, more accurately, judicial
\n intemperance<\/i>,\u201d wrote Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank.
\n \u201cTypically, justices state their differences in words \u2014 and
\n Alito, as it happens, had just spoken several hundred of his own
\n from the bench. But Alito frequently supplements words with
\n middle-school gestures<\/i>.\u201d \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
\n summer, but admitted doubts over whether Republicans and
\n Democrats would be able to agree on the issue.\n<\/p>\n