Changes

Although the Act is over 40 years old and addresses issues from the early 1960s and before, in 2006 Congress passed a 25-year extension without meaningful debate.  33 House members opposed the 25-year extension, primarily because of the imposition of multilingual balloting.  Not a single senator, however, voted against it, and President [[George W. Bush]] signed it into law.

Although the Act is over 40 years old and addresses issues from the early 1960s and before, in 2006 Congress passed a 25-year extension without meaningful debate.  33 House members opposed the 25-year extension, primarily because of the imposition of multilingual balloting.  Not a single senator, however, voted against it, and President [[George W. Bush]] signed it into law.

The law now imposes a complex system of regulations that now 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 law now 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.

In recent years it has enabled 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 Georgia's voter ID law was precleared and 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>

In recent years it has enabled 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 Georgia's voter ID law was precleared and 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>