Has the section of the Voting Rights Act that requires some southern states to submit changes in their voting laws to the Justice Department for approval outlived its usefulness? That's a question the Supreme Court will get to decide. Later this month, oral arguments will be heard in the case of Shelby County vs. Holder. At issue: What purpose does Sction 5 of the Voting Rights Act serve in an era where a black man has been twice elected president? New York Times: Critics of the Section 5 preclearance requirement call it an unwarranted and discriminatory federal intrusion on state sovereignty and a badge of shame for the affected jurisdictions that is no longer justified. But Mr. Anderson said he welcomed the process, to a point. "I think it plays a very valuable role, and I think we need it," he said. "Personally, I think we need it nationwide." The problem, he said, is that the provision applies in only some parts of the country. "I think it's discriminatory because it picks on us...(Read Full Post)