The "Preclearance" provision of the Voting Rights Act is indeed constitutional. It allowed sweeping changes to take effect to protect and encourage minorities to vote. Since they are American citizens who previously had trouble voting or having their vote counted, Preclearance is definitely constitutional. It is perhaps the best piece of policy written into law.
The "Preclearance" portion in the Voting Rights Act is constitutional because it is necessary in order to ensure that other laws, chiefly the right to vote, are administered fairly and equally. It should be applied to all states, even those not specified in the original voting rights act to avoid any appearance of unconstitutionality.
Voting rights is a very contentious area of American politics due to the long history of using poll taxes and poll criteria in order to exclude parts of the population from voting. Still, the voting process does need some way to verify the identities of voters in the US to stop randoms.
Yes, this provision in the Voting Rights Act is constitutional, because before it was put into place the government spent a lot of time and money making sure that it was something that needed to be put into place, and they know what they are doing, and how to make stuff fair.
No, the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act is not constitutional, because the law is meant to be reactive, rather than to rule on the validity of an administrative rule before it has even gone into effect. The executive or judicial branch should not act as summary judgment against what other branches of government do.