Changes

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, a federal law passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, places enormous burdens on some States and local regions with respect to how they conduct elections.  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 (e.g., Alabama and Mississippi), while some of the counties are located in unexpected places around the Nation (including parts of 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>  Notice the use of the word "effect" - all revisions to election laws have the "effect" of changing who is likely to vote, so virtually all revisions to election laws in covered areas (e.g., Alabama) are potentially subject to the Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, a federal law passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, places enormous burdens on some States and local regions with respect to how they conduct elections.  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 (e.g., Alabama and Mississippi), while some of the counties are located in unexpected places around the Nation (including parts of 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>  Notice the use of the word "effect" - all revisions to election laws have the "effect" of changing who is likely to vote, so virtually all revisions to election laws in covered areas (e.g., Alabama) are potentially subject to the Voting Rights Act.

The basis for the Voting Rights Act 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.}}

The basis for the Voting Rights Act 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 racial discrimination against African Americans in elections.  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).  But today federal courts issue injunctions within days, if not hours, of any racial discrimination by a State, so the justification by congressional Democrats in 1965 for the pre-clearance requirement seems more political than grounded in reality.

You might be surprised by what is considered to be racial discrimination that triggers application of the Voting Rights Act for all future elections.  In Texas, officials did not print a Spanish version of the ballot in one election, and in a 1975 congressional reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, Democrats rewrote the criteria for coverage under its Section 4 so that it would include Texas.  Indeed, ballots now must be printed at enormous local expense in numerous foreign languages, not merely Spanish, or else the Voting Rights Act could be applied against all future elections by the State or local government.

You might be surprised by what is considered to be racial discrimination that triggers application of the Voting Rights Act for all future elections.  In Texas, officials did not print a Spanish version of the ballot in one election, and in a 1975 congressional reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, Democrats rewrote the criteria for coverage under its Section 4 so that it would include Texas.  Indeed, ballots now must be printed at enormous local expense in numerous foreign languages, not merely Spanish, or else the Voting Rights Act could be applied against all future elections by the State or local government.