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 2 Version 3
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 overturned 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 formula 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 all or parts of 15 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.
Obama 'deeply disappointed'
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."
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.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 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.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.
President Barack Obama said he was "deeply disappointed" by the court's ruling.
The ruling "upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent", he said in a statement.
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.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.
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.
Supporters of the provision say recent efforts to change election laws in some parts of the US, including a series of voter identification laws, underline why the measure is still relevant.Supporters of the provision say recent efforts to change election laws in some parts of the US, including a series of voter identification laws, underline why the measure is still relevant.
Last year, the US justice department blocked changes to voter identification laws in the states of South Carolina and Texas.Last year, the US justice department blocked changes to voter identification laws in the states of South Carolina and Texas.
And a federal court ruled that a plan to change the boundaries of congressional districts in Texas discriminated against the state's large and growing Hispanic population.And a federal court ruled that a plan to change the boundaries of congressional districts in Texas discriminated against the state's large and growing Hispanic population.
Activists in favour of keeping section 4 of the law say that since the Voting Rights Act was renewed seven years ago, as many as 31 proposed changes to election laws have been blocked by Washington.Activists in favour of keeping section 4 of the law say that since the Voting Rights Act was renewed seven years ago, as many as 31 proposed changes to election laws have been blocked by Washington.
Last week, the Supreme Court struck down a state law in Arizona that would have required registered voters to provide proof of citizenship at the polls.Last week, the Supreme Court struck down a state law in Arizona that would have required registered voters to provide proof of citizenship at the polls.
Democrats say stricter voting laws, mainly championed by Republican legislatures, are designed to make it harder for minorities - who tend to vote Democratic - to cast their ballots.Democrats say stricter voting laws, mainly championed by Republican legislatures, are designed to make it harder for minorities - who tend to vote Democratic - to cast their ballots.