Should the Supreme Court strike down the 'preclearance' provision of the Voting Rights Act?

  • Yes, they should, times have changed.

    Times have changed so very much from the 1960s when the Voting Rights Act was first passed by our government. The racism that was all over the south is no longer an issue, and it is not within the bounds of the constitution to punish certain states as we have been.

  • No, I do not think so!

    I agree, we need to have the people vote on changing any provisions to the Voting Rights Act. Since we are the ones who are actually voting, maybe the Supreme Court can stay out of this and put this in ballot for us to decide. Supreme Court has other issues they can be taken care of instead of this!

  • No, They Should Not

    I fail to see any good reason as to why the U.S. Supreme Court should strike down anything that is contained in the Voting Rights Act. It is a good piece of legislation that has done its job over several decades. Why change it now after all of these years?

  • Leave It In And Let Congress Do The Work

    The 'preclearance' provision serves a good purpose. Congress has reauthorized it a number of times. It should stay. If the Voting Rights Act needs any type of fixing, it should be done by people who are routinely elected. It should be tinkered with by people who lifetime appointments and are above oversight.

    Posted by: rpr

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.