Court’s decision was based in evidence
I suggest the liberal community stop hyperventilating and whining long enough to look at the facts. [“Future of voting-rights law in doubt,” page one, June 26.]
First, any discrimination in voting requirements is still just as illegal as it has been since 1964. That has not changed.
Second, if any jurisdiction were to make a discriminatory change to a voting procedure, I am sure that would be swiftly challenged in a court.
What has changed is that a few jurisdictions no longer are required to have federal bureaucrats approve proposed voting-procedure changes before implementation.
This draconian requirement was needed in those areas 50 years ago, based on hard evidence. There is just as much hard evidence that this pre-approval is no longer needed in those places.
Therefore, the Supreme Court only said that the requirement had to be based on current evidence. What could be more logical?
Larry Holdren, Bellevue