Changes

The '''National Voting Rights Act of 1965'''<ref>42 U.S.C. § 1973-1973aa-6</ref> authorized, and in some areas required, federal oversight of elections. Many (but not all) of these areas are in the South. Frequently amended, it imposes a complex system of regulations that include forcing local governments to print multilingual ballots at their own expense, in many different foreign languages.  It requires federal registration of voters in regions where less than 50% of minorities are registered.

The '''National Voting Rights Act of 1965'''<ref>42 U.S.C. § 1973-1973aa-6</ref> authorized, and in some areas required, federal oversight of elections. Many (but not all) of these areas are in the South. Frequently amended, it imposes a complex system of regulations that include forcing local governments to print multilingual ballots at their own expense, in many different foreign languages.  It requires federal registration of voters in regions where less than 50% of minorities are registered.

Simply put, it enables liberals in [[Washington, D.C.]] to block reforms such as voter ID sought by local jurisdictions in 16 states.  However, it should be noted that a three-judge panel allowed South Carolina's voter ID law to take effect (albeit modified by a state interpretation during the trial).<ref>''South Carolina v. United States'' (D.D.C. 2012)</ref>  The entire State of Texas was subjected to ongoing federal control of its elections for the indefinite future merely because Texas once printed its ballots in English rather than Spanish.  Texas has also had more objections to changes in its voting procedures from 1966 to 2004 than any other covered state.<ref>''Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. No. One v. Mukasey'' 573 F.Supp.2d. 221, 281 (D.D.C. 2008)</ref>

Simply put, it enables liberals in [[Washington, D.C.]] to block reforms such as voter ID sought by local jurisdictions in 16 states.  However, it should be noted that a three-judge panel allowed South Carolina's voter ID law to take effect (albeit modified by a state interpretation during the trial).<ref>''South Carolina v. United States'' (D.D.C. 2012)</ref>  The entire State of Texas was subjected to ongoing federal control of its elections until it successfully bails out of being a covered jurisdiction in part because Texas once printed its ballots in English rather than Spanish.  Texas has also had more objections to changes in its voting procedures from 1966 to 2004 than any other covered state.<ref>''Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. No. One v. Mukasey'' 573 F.Supp.2d. 221, 281 (D.D.C. 2008)</ref>

==Politics==

==Politics==