Changes

==Politics==

==Politics==

The Act was passed by the U.S. Congress over strong  opposition from the the southern wing of the Democratic Party; Democratic President [[Lyndon Johnson]] turned to Minority Leader [[Everett Dirksen]] for [[Republican]] support <ref>[http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64_cloturespeech.htm Everett McKinley Dirksen's Finest Hour: June 10, 1964], ''The Peoria Journal Star'', June 10, 2004, retrieved from The Dirksen Congressional center 05/20/07.</ref> to break the Southern Democratic [[filibuster]]. Dirksen spoke on the Senate floor,

The Act was passed by the U.S. Congress over strong  opposition from the the southern wing of the Democratic Party; Democratic President [[Lyndon Johnson]] turned to Minority Leader [[Everett Dirksen]] for [[Republican]] support <ref>[http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64_cloturespeech.htm Everett McKinley Dirksen's Finest Hour: June 10, 1964], ''The Peoria Journal Star'', June 10, 2004, retrieved from The Dirksen Congressional center 05/20/07.</ref> to break the Southern Democratic [[filibuster]]. Dirksen spoke on the Senate floor,

{{Cquote|The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here!}}

{{Cquote|The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here!}}

The Act gives the Department of Justice the power to approve or reject any change in a voting law in certain districts where less than 50% of the population were registered to vote in 1964. In December 1989 a three-judge district federal court held Bill Clinton's state-wide legislative reapportionment plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973.  1990 the [[Supreme Court]] of the United States found in the case of ''[[Clinton vs Jeffers]]'' <ref>Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in [http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900402.txt Clinton vs Jeffers] No. 90-394 (1990) on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991).</ref> the former Arkansas Governeror and [[Democratic]] president had violated the Voting Rights Act. The Justices findings were,

The Act gives the Department of Justice the power to approve or reject any change in a voting law in certain districts where less than 50% of the population were registered to vote in 1964. In December 1989 a three-judge district federal court held Bill Clinton's state-wide legislative reapportionment plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973.  1990 the [[Supreme Court]] of the United States found in the case of ''[[Clinton vs Jeffers]]'' <ref>Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in [http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900402.txt Clinton vs Jeffers] No. 90-394 (1990) on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991).</ref> the former Arkansas Governeror and [[Democratic]] president had violated the Voting Rights Act. The Justices findings were,

{{Cquote|[[Bill Clinton]] does not dispute here -- that "violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying [[equitable relief]] have occurred in Arkansas."

{{Cquote|[[Bill Clinton]] does not dispute here -- that "violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying [[equitable relief]] have occurred in Arkansas."

The court therefore concluded that

The court therefore concluded that

{{Cquote|This series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly unconstitutional. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot. The inference of racial motivation is inescapable.}}

{{Cquote|This series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly unconstitutional. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot. The inference of racial motivation is inescapable.}}