This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23051808

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
US Supreme Court strikes down Voting Rights Act clause US Supreme Court strikes down Voting Rights Act clause
(35 minutes later)
The US Supreme Court has struck down a key part of a landmark civil rights-era electoral law designed to protect minority voters. The US Supreme Court has overturned a key part of a landmark civil rights-era electoral law designed to protect minority voters.
By a margin of 5-4, the justices quashed section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.By a margin of 5-4, the justices quashed section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
They ruled that an updated method was needed to decide which jurisdictions' election laws need monitoring. They ruled that an updated formula was needed to decide which jurisdictions' election laws need monitoring.
The law requires a number of US states, mostly in the South, to receive federal approval for election changes. The law requires all or parts of 15 US states, mostly in the South, to receive federal approval for election changes.
The justices ruled that the tests to determine whether "pre-clearance" should be required in a particular jurisdiction were out of date.
The Voting Rights Act was extended for 25 years by Congress in 2006 with broad support.The Voting Rights Act was extended for 25 years by Congress in 2006 with broad support.
"Congress did not use the record it compiled to shape a coverage formula grounded in current conditions," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court's opinion."Congress did not use the record it compiled to shape a coverage formula grounded in current conditions," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court's opinion.
"It instead re-enacted a formula based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.""It instead re-enacted a formula based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day."
Shelby County in Alabama launched the legal challenge. It argued that the pre-clearance process was out of date and an over-reach of federal power. The justices did not go so far as to strike down section 5 of the law, known as the pre-clearance provision, which requires certain states to get federal approval before making election-law changes.
But supporters of the provision said recent efforts to change election laws in some parts of the US, including a series of voter identification laws, underlined why the measure was still relevant. But since section 4, which sets the test for pre-clearance, has been found unconstitutional, the ruling effectively renders section 5 invalid until a new formula can be agreed by Congress.
Shelby County in the southern state of Alabama launched the legal challenge. It argued that the pre-clearance process was out of date and an over-reach of federal power.
Supporters of the provision said recent efforts to change election laws in some parts of the US, including a series of voter identification laws, underlined why the measure was still relevant.
The Voting Rights Act was intended to stop practices such as literacy tests, poll taxes or similar measures to keep black people from voting, in states with a history of racial discrimination.The Voting Rights Act was intended to stop practices such as literacy tests, poll taxes or similar measures to keep black people from voting, in states with a history of racial discrimination.