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-21608053

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
US top court hears landmark voting measure challenge US top court hears landmark voting measure challenge
(about 2 hours later)
A challenge from an Alabama county over a landmark voter rights law is being heard at the US Supreme Court. A Alabama county's challenge to a landmark 1965 voting rights law is being heard at the US Supreme Court.
Shelby County says requiring places with a history of discrimination to get approval before making any changes to election law is no longer necessary. Shelby County says it is no longer necessary to require places with a history of racial discrimination to get approval to modify election laws.
The measure is part of the 1968 Voting Rights Act, extended for 25 years in 2006 with wide bipartisan support. The requirement is part of the Voting Rights Act, extended for 25 years in 2006 with wide bipartisan support.
A crucial justice appeared to be sympathetic to Shelby County's argument during Wednesday's hearing. A key justice appeared at Wednesday's hearing to be sympathetic to Shelby County's argument, analysts say.
'South more racist'? 'South more racist?'
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote on racial issues, said during discussion that "times change". Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote on many politically charged issues, said during arguments that "times change".
Chief Justice Roberts asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether the Obama administration thinks Southerners "are more racist than citizens in the North". The Voting Rights Act, passed at the height of the US civil rights movement, requires strict federal oversight of election laws in nine states, most in the US South, as well as in a few jurisdictions in other states.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who represents the Obama administration, whether the administration thought Southerners "are more racist than citizens in the North".
Mr Verrilli replied no.Mr Verrilli replied no.
The Voting Rights Act creates strict oversight of election laws in nine states, most in the US South, as well as in a few jurisdictions in other states. But other justices asked tough questions of the lawyers representing Shelby County.
Protesters against the suit marched in front of the US high court on Wednesday. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that despite change in the South, Shelby County had not made enough progress.
The lawsuit says the "dire local conditions" that once justified strict federal oversight of elections no longer exist. "Why would we vote in favour of your county whose enforcement record is the epitome of the reasons that caused this law to be passed in the first place?" she asked.
The Obama administration and civil rights groups acknowledge progress made in combating discriminatory attitudes towards African-Americans and others covered by the law, but says Congress was justified in maintaining the provision in 2006. In its suit challenging the law, Shelby County argues the "dire local conditions" that once justified strict federal oversight of elections no longer exist.
If the advanced approval went away, "it would be hard for us to catch those things up front to make sure that elections are done in an equitable way," President Barack Obama told a radio host, Joe Madison, last week. The Obama administration and civil rights groups acknowledge progress in combating discrimination against African Americans and minority groups, but argue Congress was justified in extending the provision in 2006.
The law's supporters say it has been successful because it requires governments to demonstrate that their proposed election changes will not discriminate. If the requirement for advance approval were thrown out "it would be hard for us to catch those things up front to make sure that elections are done in an equitable way," Mr Obama told a radio host, Joe Madison, last week.
The law's supporters say it has been successful because it requires jurisdictions to demonstrate that proposed election law changes will not discriminate.
"It moved the burden from victims to perpetrators,'' said Sherrilyn Ifill, the head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) legal defence and educational fund."It moved the burden from victims to perpetrators,'' said Sherrilyn Ifill, the head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) legal defence and educational fund.
Shelby County and several states joining the suit say Congress did not take into account dramatic increases in the voter registration and participation by minorities when it agreed to extend the law, as well as discrimination problems in other places not covered by the provision. Shelby County and several states joining the suit say Congress did not take into account dramatic increases in voter registration and participation by minorities when it agreed to extend the law, nor discrimination problems in places not covered by the requirement.
Their lawyers also argue those who are discriminated against could still file a lawsuit under the other provisions of the measure. Their lawyers also argue those who are discriminated against could still file a lawsuit under the other provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court already has expressed scepticism about the continuing need for the law. Supreme Court justices have already expressed scepticism about the continuing need for the law.
In a similar challenge four years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts that the law's past success "is not adequate justification to retain the preclearance requirements". In a similar challenge four years ago, Chief Justice Roberts said the law's past success "is not adequate justification to retain the preclearance requirements".
Justices sidestepped the question of its constitutionality at the time.Justices sidestepped the question of its constitutionality at the time.
In total, the provision covers Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, as well as certain places in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, Michigan and New Hampshire. The provision covers Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, as well as certain places in California, Florida, Michigan, New York, New Hampshire, North Carolina and South Dakota.