(nitpick) The majority opinion didn't take issue with Section 5. It took issue with Section 4, saying that Congress may not simply presume that the jurisdictions which need to be controlled by Section 5 are the same as the ones which needed Section 5 fifty years ago. Section 5 is still held to be Constitutionally acceptable if a new Section 4 with an updated list of jurisdictions were to be passed. (/nitpick)
Supplying what comforts are practical (which may not include porta-potties, a pity because I'd put them high on the priority list) to people waiting in line to vote is self-evidently good.
Comments 5
Reply
Supplying what comforts are practical (which may not include porta-potties, a pity because I'd put them high on the priority list) to people waiting in line to vote is self-evidently good.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment