Changes

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most important and burdensome of all federal laws.  Enacted pursuant to the 15th Amendment (which prohibits racial discrimination in voting laws), the Voting Rights Act requires pre-clearance by the U.S. Department of Justice of any changes in election laws by certain states and local government.  Most of the States covered by the Voting Rights Act are in the South (including Florida and Texas), while some of the counties are located in unexpected places around the Nation (including New York).  The Voting Rights Act prohibits changes to election laws in covered states that "[have] the purpose [or] will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color."<ref>The citation in the "United States Code" is 42 U.S.C. 1973c(a).</ref>

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most important and burdensome of all federal laws.  Enacted pursuant to the 15th Amendment (which prohibits racial discrimination in voting laws), the Voting Rights Act requires pre-clearance by the U.S. Department of Justice of any changes in election laws by certain states and local government.  Most of the States covered by the Voting Rights Act are in the South (including Florida and Texas), while some of the counties are located in unexpected places around the Nation (including New York).  The Voting Rights Act prohibits changes to election laws in covered states that "[have] the purpose [or] will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color."<ref>The citation in the "United States Code" is 42 U.S.C. 1973c(a).</ref>

The basis for the law and where it applies is this:  if there is any evidence of racial discrimination in how elections are run by a State or local government, then it can be designated as subject to the Voting Rights Act for future elections.  The Act was enacted by an overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled Congress and president in order to exert greater federal control over the election process, and was subsequently applied against States (like Alaska) that had no history of discrimination against African Americans but rather had a history of discrimination against other minority groups (like American Indians and Hispanics).  Congress declared the purpose of its pre-clearance provision to shift the burden to States: {{cquote|Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.}}

The basis for the law and where it applies is this:  if there is any evidence of racial discrimination in how elections are run by a State or local government, then it can be designated as subject to the Voting Rights Act for future elections.  The Act was enacted by an overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled Congress and president in order to exert greater federal control over the election process, and was subsequently applied against States (like Alaska) that had a history of discrimination against other minority groups (like American Indians and Hispanics).  Congress declared the purpose of its pre-clearance provision to shift the burden to States: {{cquote|Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.}}

''South Carolina v. Katzenbach'', 383 U.S. 301, 328 (1966) (citation omitted).

''South Carolina v. Katzenbach'', 383 U.S. 301, 328 (1966) (citation omitted).