Discussion Question#2 Chapter #5

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 discussion.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson and aimed at overcoming the legal barriers that existed at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their voting rights as guaranteed under the 15th amendment to the U.S constitution. Section 4 of the act provided a formula of identifying the states and counties which were affected while section five provided preclearance of these affected areas. Establishment of this act was of great importance since in a democratic country all the citizens in that particular country are entitled to rights to vote in order to choose leaders of their own preference.
The decision of Supreme Court made on 25th, June 2013 that held that section 4 and 5 of the act as unconstitutional surely caused adverse effects to the affected states and will linger causing these advance effects. The court through John Roberts who is the Chief Justice contended that the struck down of the sections IV and V of the Act was as a result of the changes that the country had undergone few years ago. “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,” Roberts wrote (HuffPost). The legislation that would be made presently must solve the problem of racial discrimination and at the same time reflect the current conditions.
The struck down of section 4 and 5 of the Act meant that these affected states and counties would no longer be identified and were free to make changes to the voting laws without the need of seeking a prior consent from a state court or the Department of Fairness.

These effects were already evident, Ballard Spahr LLP said: “The demise of Section 4 has had and will continue to have substantial effects. Mere hours after the Court issued its decision, Texas announced that it would activate its controversial voter ID law and possibly the redistricting maps passed by the Texas legislature. The North Carolina legislature has also indicated its plan to enact a statute . . . that requires voters to present state-issued photo ID to vote.”(Newsmax.com- What is Preclearance?).
The changes were supported by some people stating that the voter ID law could now help to fight voter deceit whereas others rejected claiming that voter discernment had just been reopened after a number of years of tough advancement.
However, following the guidelines of the required form of photo IDs it is clear that there were so many forms of them and an option to defend oneself by filling out a declaration of a reasonable impediment of not obtaining any of the listed forms of IDs. This proved that it was not fully disadvantageous but also advantageous to a big extend to combat voting fraud. In the case of the voter ID law, it would only affect few people (the minority) who could still vote after filling out a declaration and providing supporting forms. In fact using an ID while voting would be a good measure to protect the rights of voters.
In conclusion, the struck down of sections 4 and 5 of the foresaid Act and the reintroduction of voter identification decree would only affect the majority and protect the integrity of the elections. It was therefore witty for the judges to bring such changes to the country voting guidelines.
References.
https://www.newsmax.com/fastfeatures/voting-rights-act-preclearance/2015/11/09/id/701375/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_3429810.html