officials in shelby county, alabama, challenged that aovision, arguing the south had dede great progress since the act became law. today should be treated like the rest of the country. in its 5-4 decision, the court aid shelby county had a point, conthe justices turned the spotlight squarely on congress,

you heard the state rep from shelby county. he said, listen, alabama is a different place. it is not the place it was in 1965. his reaction obviously one of positive because he feels they've won here. >> well, that's absolutely right. that's his perspective. it's a perspective shared by five justices on the supreme court. that's what you need. it is not one that was shared by the overwhelming majorities in the house and the senate when they reauthorized the voting rights act. the justices have said the list that was used in that section four preclearance provision was outdated and needs to be updated and needs to be narrowed. that's the next discussion. what will happen across the street from the supreme court in

that was not the state. >> the county of shelby, right? >> yeah, it was a city within the county. it didn't have anything to do with the way we run it at the state level. now, listen, just because section four has been put to the side, that does not mean that someone cannot file a lawsuit if they feel discrimination is going on. i think the people court has recognized vast progress made in alabama and in the other states, the other 15 states and cities that were subject to this. i personally am very proud of how far we, in alabama, have come since those days back in the '50s and '60s. >> you're proud of your state, but do you believe that can be said for all states? certainly those that were affected by the voting rights act. >> i really cannot speak for the other states. i know what's going on in alabama, since i was involved in redistricting intimately. i know how that has worked. so as far as what the other states are doing, i really do not know that. >> all right. sir, thank you for your time. i really appreciate you joining me. state rep jim mcclendon out of shelby county, al

he said i don't think shelby county -- shelby county has never had a history of denying votes and toy knowledge not now. do you think the denial of these issues might play in the opposition to a legislative path forward? if so, is there anything that the administration can do outside of congress given that again the principle is constitutional but the formula is not, to try to continue to uphold some of these measures? >> i'm going to let my colleague from alabama speak to the specifics of it. let me just say this. to the senator whom i respect greatly. you can have your own opinion, as they say, but you can't have your own facts. and the fact is that shelby county in fact has had a history of discrimination. and certainly i would say that if what they want us to do is march again we are up to the task. i certainly do believe that the president and the white house and every person of good will in this country have an obligation to do their part to see that this is corrected. >> well, i just have to say with all due respect to my senator whom i respect a lot, the reality is that the s

clearly, the statute applies to shelby county. a 5-4 decision, majority opinion by chief justice roberts. what the court does is declared unconstitutional section 4 of the coverage provision. on the little hand out of summaries of cases in which i ,rote the shelby county summary before the case came down this week, i talked about the proportionality, suggesting that was the basis on which the court was going to act. that turned out not to be true. if i had to summarize the it.onale, i could not do the do not actually rely on city. it is kind of like, we finally ofe 5 votes to get rid section 5 of the voting rights act. everybody knows that congress will not be able to readjust the coverage formula. is pre-clearance provision dead in the water. the coverage today is based on decades old data and eradicated practices. the references to the first order voting discrimination fatten -- practices, which are rare, if they exist at all. in justice ginsburg, she takes aim at second generation discriminatory voting actions that we saw in th

so the formula itself is the reason why shelby county encounters the burdens and it is the reason why the court needs to -- in katzenbach, didn't it do what you're asking us to do which is look at all the other states and counties. it basically concentrated on the record of the two litigants in the case.

shelby county, alabama. and his fingerprints were on many things.ut the man who's actually signing most of the stuff right now is anthony kennedy. so they're working together in a way. and both of them, separated by t 20abou years in age, feel like they've got real legacies to ensure here. and i think that what we're seeing is them working in tandem. and last year, it was john roberts who cast the deciding vote in health care. this year, this year, it was anthony kennedy, all over the place with his idea of equality. >> i was just going to say it's the roberts court. but right now anthony kennedy is the president and chief executive officer. you have his views. he's very opposed to any kind of governmental preference for race conscious decisions. he also, though, feels very strongly about -- a libertarian view on the dignity and sanctity of the individual. so you have him writing the main -- all the court's important gay rights cases. but also casting a very dim view of affirmative action and the voting rights act. gwen: is whatever happens with the

he said i don't think shelby county -- shelby county has never had a history of denying votes and to my knowledge not now. do you think the denial of these issues might play in the opposition to a legislative path forward? if so, is there anything that the administration can do outside of congress given that again the principle is constitutional but the formula is not, to try to continue to uphold some of these measures? >> i'm going to let my colleague from alabama speak to the specifics of it. let me just say this. to the senator whom i respect greatly. you can have your own opinion, as they say, but you can't have your own facts. and the fact is that shelby county in fact has had a history of discrimination. and certainly i would say that if what they want us to do is march again we are up to the task. i certainly do believe that the president and the white house and every person of good will in this country have an obligation to do their part to see that this is corrected. >> well, i just have to say with all due respect to my senator whom i respect a lot, the reality is that the

clearly, the statute applies to shelby county. there was a 5-4 decision, majority opinion by chief justice roberts. what the court does is declared unconstitutional section 4 of the coverage provision. on the little hand out of summaries of cases in which i wrote the shelby county summary, before the case came down this week, i talked about the analysis in proportionality, suggesting that was the basis on which the court was going to act. that turned out not to be true. if i had to summarize the rationale, i could not do it. they do not actually rely on the city. it is kind of like, we finally have 5 votes to get rid of section 5 of the voting rights act. everybody knows that congress will not be able to readjust the coverage formula. the pre-clearance provision is dead in the water. the coverage today is based on decades old data and eradicated practices. the references to the first order voting discrimination practices, which are rare, if they exist at all. in justice ginsburg, she takes aim at second generation discriminatory v

he said i don't think shelby county -- shelby county has never had a history of denying votes and to my knowledge not now. do you think the denial of these issues might play in the opposition to a legislative path forward? if so, is there anything that the administration can do outside of congress given that again the principle is constitutional but the formula is not, to try to continue to uphold some of these measures? >> i'm going to let my colleague from alabama speak to the specifics of it. let me just say this. to the senator whom i respect greatly. you can have your own opinion, as they say, but you can't have your own facts. and the fact is that shelby county in fact has had a history of discrimination. and certainly i would say that if what they want us to do is march again we are up to the task. i certainly do believe that the president and the white house and every person of good will in this country have an obligation to do their part to see that this is corrected. >> well, i just have to say with all due respect to my senator whom i respect a lot, the reality is that the

and they exist in shelby county alabama.y had to be taken to task during this past election cycle. and they brought the complaint. there are other ways that states and jurisdictions can get out of under control of this law, they could have applied to be released from it but shelby county didn't do that because they knew they were guilty. in their history only two black people have ever held office. so they had to go this way, and good for them they won. >> michael: and one of those people switched parties because he found the situation there so untenable. we call our series that you have been so gracious as to take part in, our civil rights series, the march goes on but this seems to show that it is never ending. what specifically has to happen now to win this fight? >> ordinary americans, not just civil rights organizations and the naacp and other groups not just jesse jackson and people like that, ordinary people have to say i'm tired of this. i want this to go away. i'm talking to my congressman and senator, and telling t

opponents of the law who helped shelby county, alabama challenge it, hailed the ruling. >> we've just elected a black president of the shelby county board of education over a white incumbent, in a countywide election. >> african-americans are an integral part of southern political life. and that's a good thing, and that's never going to change. >> reporter: but writing for the court's four dissenters, justice ginsburg said gutting the law that is like throwing away your umbrella in the rainstorm because you're not getting wet. civil rights groups vowed to rally the same kind of action from congress they got 48 years ago. >> the reality is, the only way congress will act is if we call, if we march, if we pressure, if we make clear that we do not intend to go backwards on voting. >> reporter: one state, texas, responded immediately, saying it would start enforcing one of the nation's strictest voter i.d. laws, something the federal government tried to stop. and it may also redraw its congressional and legislative districts now that it's no longer covered by a key part of the voting righ

some compelling points where they said you know it's been thirty forty years shelby county was also on able to demonstrate any harm this was this was an argument on its face they did have a standing army they had standing they were they were given standing by the court i don't think they should have ever they were on stand what they were not because you know you've got and you had nine states that had extraordinary scrutiny but not massachusetts where when i was a kid. mobs tried to tip over us it's been groups of massachusetts should be before the supreme court saying extend the voting act voting rights so then make that case but don't single out these nine in two thousand and thirteen in other news it looks like the i.r.s. scandal is finally over the new documents obtained by the associated press show that in addition to targeting groups with the name tea party the i.r.s. has also been targeting liberal groups the iris finally released their internal investigation into the a.p. terms included israel progressive and occupy were used by agency workers to help pick groups for cl

officials in shelby county, alabama, challenged that aovision, arguing the south had dede great progress since the act became law. today should be treated like the rest of the country. in its 5-4 decision, the court aid shelby county had a point, conthe justices turned the spotlight squarely on congress, saying it was wrong to use a decades-old formula to keep the same states under federal oversight. when congress reauthorized the voting rights act in 2006, it continued to rely on rates of minority voter registration and turnout from the 1960s and early 1970s instead of using current tata. history did not end in 1965, the court said. n the years since, voting tests shed abolished, disparities in onter registration and turnout rae to race were erased. and african-americans attained political office in record numbers. but justice ruth bader ginsburg, joined by the three other liberal justices said congress assembled volumes of evidence to show federal oversight in the covered jurisdictions worked and that without it the covered states could revert back to their old ways. throwing out pre-c

. >> reporter: at his home in shelby county, alabama, in the community where the voting rites act may have met its end, reverend albert jones told us 40 years may not have been enough time. he says he still hears the echoes of the hateful voices from the 1960s. >> i'm not for integration. i'm for segregation. i will be until i die. [ cheers ] [ screams ] >> reporter: jones fought on the front lines in the struggle for civil rights. he said it feels like yesterday when he woke up to find a burning cross in his yard and when he went to register to vote. he said they first asked who he knew. when he gave them the name of a black businessman, they asked for someone who was white. >> they asked me, who do you know? >> reporter: only then did he take a literacy test. which he passed, and was then allowed to register to vote. you had to take a literacy test? >> i did. you took tests. i passed the test. i can read and write. >> reporter: reverend jones says he wants the country to realize today that instead of literacy tests, black families struggle with voter i.d. laws and redistricting mean

he helped shelby county bring its challenge to the voting rights act.herrilyn ifill is president and director-counsel of the n.a.a.c.p. legal defense and educational fund. you saw both of them earlier outside the courtroom in kwame's report. and full disclosure: sherrilyn ifill is gwen's cousin. let's start with the basics. did the voting rights act, edward blum, do what it was passed to do in 1965? >> thank goodness it did. it ended the widespread and insidious acts of racial disenfranchisement throughout the deep south and elsewhere and it's a great testament to the evolution of our nation that the court today felt that the voting rights act had done its thing and was no longer necessary. i think that's a good thing for the country and i think it speaks well to the character of the american people. >> suarez: sherrilyn ifill, same question. >> the votingigs act has been called the crown jewel because it has been so effective. has it completed its work? by no means. that's why in 2006 when congress was looking at whether to reauthorization the voting r

elected a black president of the shelby county board of education over a white incumbent in a county wide election. >> african-americans are an integral part of southern political life. that's a good thing and that's never going to change. >> but writing for the court's four dissenters rude baiter ginsburg said gutting the law is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet. civil rights groups vowed to rally the same kind i have action from congress they got 48 years ago. >> the only way congress will act is if we call, if we march, if we pressure, if we make clear that we do not intend to go backwards on voting. >> one state, texas, responded immediately saying it would start enforcing one of the nation's strictest voter i.d. laws, something the federal government tried to stop. it may also redraw its congressional and legislative districts now that it's no longer covered by the key part of the voting rights act. >> that was nbc's pete williams reporting. joining me now to discuss more on this position is danita judge, a staff attorney for the adv

have operated under and that principal caused this problem you can't say the shelby county without showing actual evidence that they are violating minority nobody says they they were unable to demonstrate any are they were no no they were demonstrating the harm the hard there was no assertion of harm they were simply saying we don't like this law strike it down no you can't do that shelby said we shouldn't have to get permission to make the changes we want and the federal government with its preclearance authority could have simply issued a letter to shelby and said you're right you're not a problem let's go and focus on where the problems were the first time that a problem they seemed as if they were being restrained then yes they were that's the whole purpose of the shelby case that's its origin and there were no specifics and now congress isn't has been tasked with not not just totally ignoring a session but they have to create new you know more data more up to date. qualification rights like i did two thousand and six when they heard fifty one witnesses and produce fifty two thousand p

chief justice roberts said the south has changed, and that is true, but shelby county has not claimed-- changed as much as some would like to claim. hewitt, thank you for theg with us, a member of naacp ldf's fund. he launched their dismantling to "the school-to-prison pipeline: structuring legal reform." this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. when we come back, we'll look at the information that has come out of the national security agency. how much it knows about you. stay with us. [♪] [music break] >> "school days" - chuck barry. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. >> as the media focuses almost exclusively on edward snowden's whereabouts, more details on the obama administration's program and whistleblower has come to light. snowden becomes the seventh person to be charged by the obama administration under the nearly 100-year-old espionage act. the crackdown on leaks has also extended to journalists. the administration seized the phone records of associated press reporters and the e-mails of fox news' ja

the voting rights act was challenged by shelby county, alabama which argued the preclearance requirement has outlived its usefulness just two hours after the ruling texas began advancing a voter id law and redistricting maps that were blocked last year for restricting african-american and latino residents. we will have more on the decision with reverend jesse jackson. if president obama has unveiled a new climate plan featuring a series of executive actions to tackle global warming. he said addressing climate change is a fight for the survival of future generations. >> the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it is too late. and how we answer will have a profound impact on the world that we leave behind not just to you, but your children and grandchildren. a president, as a father, and as an american, i am here to say we need to act. >> wiping his brow in the intense summer heat, president obama confirmed he will impose the first limits on greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing power plants. the move will not require congressional approval, meaning obama

people of shelby county say hey we ain't no racists anymore. know we're good folk here. we know what we're doing. that was the old days. we've really changed so just let us do it our way right? >> well, you know, i can't claim to know the hearts and minds of the people of shelby county. but at oral arguments justices kagan and sotomayor raised a really good point which is that you know, even if their arguments about how the south has changed et cetera we don't need the harsh measures to protect voting rights, shelby county still has a very recent history of discrimination when it comes to voting. and so what those justices raised was look, you can claim the arguments about how the south has changed for everyone else but you look at the actual past practices recently in shelby county, you can't really count yourselves among that. >> bill: it seems to me that the burden of the voting rights act is not that strict or not that burdensome. all they have to do if they want to change their law a little bit. this very to get -- they have to get the sup

and this is really focused on shelby county, alabama. and they argue there that this law is outdated. that they shouldn't have to follow these things. what are you looking for? >> you know, i think what we're looking for is whether the supreme court will go narrow or broad in this case. if it goes narrowly it can strike down that states have to opt in or opt out of this mechanism. if the supreme court goes broad and strikes down the mechanism all together, section five, that would be a much broader holding. >> let me read to you a couple of the arguments that were made. sonja sotomayor said why would we do this when it's the epitome of how we started? it's an old disease. it's gotten better. a lot better. but it's still there. let's go to nbc's pete williams at the court. >> reporter: well, this decision strikes down a key part of the voting rights act and leaves it up to congress to fix it. they were two parts of the law in question. this is the civil rights law signed by president johnson in 1965, renewed four times, most recently in 2

let's also talk about shelby county versus holder, which is the kind of voting rights case. they are challenging section 5 of the voting rights. we know in 2012, voter suppression was running rampant. we had over 160 laos proposed throughout the country and some more pressures in some localized areas protected by section 5. all had to be pre-cleared by d.o.j. shelby county, the lead plaintiff petition ner in this case had over 200 challenges to which sotomayor said, you might be a bad plaintiff for this. when you think about that, how is it possible that the court could decide section 5 is unconstitutional. >> beyond the politics, there is also another section that's being challenged, section 4. in that section, it is the pre-clearance condition, the policy, the formula that congress uses to choose who is going to get preclearance. the court could say these are out of date. they need to go back to the drawing board and say what types of policies can be put forward for today. we know congress will get it. they will get the ball back in their court. what's going to happen? dro

you know, the shelby county case was brought because of a redistricting plan that the effect of which actually ousted the african-american elected official. and this, as you said, wasn't in the '60s or '70s or '80s. this was in 2006. you know, i can't say what the intent was of the redistricting plan. but we can all agree that there was discriminatory effect on that plan. and so for the supreme court to rule, to strike down the coverage formula in the shelby county case i think is not only ironic, but it's really tragic. i really hope that we in congress will act quickly to make sure that we protect the right to vote for all americans. >> well, you know, jeff, when you look at the fact that the chief justice roberts, he wrote a majority opinion, quote, our country has changed. and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions. well, that sounds to me like, well, the patient is not all the way healed. so find out how to heal the patient in total, and we'll withdraw the medic

shelby county, alabama, south of birmingham says the law is so outdated it's no longer constitutional. >> the america that elected barack obama is not the america of our parents and grandparents. >> reporter: another case challenges affirmative action in school admissions. the university of texas says considering race is one factor gets more diversity on campus overall and within the minority groups. when the case was argued last october, a majority including chief justice john robert seem s to find that too vague. >> when will i know that you've reached a critical mass? >> reporter: one bit of drama we're not expecting is a retirement, the court's oldest justice ruth ginsberg shows no sign of slowing down. >> when nightly news continues, inside the u.s. coast guard's high tech training center. saving lives is serious business. >>> and carrying the family tradition to new heights, nik wallenda's great adventure. >>> last night in a program we introduced you to the elite rescue swimmers from the u.s. coast guard. the incredibly brave men and women who swim into the face of danger to br

in shelby county versus holder, the voting rights act, the voting rights act, the cornerstone of therights movement. the thing that really got me engaged in politics as a young kid, got me to run for the united states senate when i was 29 years old. that law, today's decision, upset a well established practice the voting rights act has been repeatedly enacted by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in congress. every time it came up for reauthorization, we got support. if i'm not mistaken, the last time strom thurmond voted to reauthorize it as well. no, i'm serious. so in 2006, it was reauthorized by unanimous support of the united states senate, and near unanimous of the united states house of representatives. this report is based on a recognition that voting is a fundamental right. it is the foundation of our democracy. the voting rights act has been a critical and effective means to guarantee that core right. as the supreme court acknowledged, we made progress as a nation the supreme court also recognized voting discrimination still exists. between 1982 and 2006, the justice depart

the naacp legal defense funds represents black voters in shelby county, alabama. we were parties in this case. we argued this case in the supreme court. and our clients can well attest to the ongoing issue of racial discrimination and voting in their jurisdiction. shelby county, alabama was found by a court to have engaged in voting discrimination just in 2008. so this is not just about history. this is about the reality of today. it is the reality in towns and villages and counties all across the united states. what the supreme court did today i think was not only an act of judicial overreach, but it was a real betrayal of minority voters in this country and it was a slap in the face to congress because congress reauthorized the act in 2006. they amassed a 15,000-page record. they looked rigorously at not just what happened in 1965 or 1975, or 1982 when the voting rights act was reauthorized, but they looked at what had been happening in the covered jurisdictions under the voting rights act up until 2006 and they determined that the act had to be reauthorized and

the court's 5-4 ruling in shelby county versus holder. free states and municipalities with a history of racial discrimination from having to clear changes in voting procedures from the federal government, effectively ending the practice. the so-called preclearance provision has stopped in nine states. today's decision does not invalidate the preclearance requirement. out right instead, the conservative majority ruled they failed to take account of changing circumstances in the south. i would like to bring in tom goldstein. tom, as we talk about the decision, as we examine it does not make the voting rights act null and void, but it's up to congress to reinterpret what formula is best for the country. >> that's right, one is a traditional lawsuit. but the provision here involves a ruling where you said, the states and counties and localities have to get permission ahead of time. that's a provision of the voting rights act. and you're right that the supreme court effectively kicked this back across the street to congress and said update the

and squenltly this dignitary harm to the state is something that shelby county is arguing against. they are arguing even if it was constitutional way back in the 1960's. every time congress reauthorizes, they reauthorize it not based on current events but based on this long term history. the question is whether or not the voting rights act is still constitutional with respect to those states and whether the time is over and these states should be treated the same as all others. they haven't made a decision about that yet. we were talking about what we think might happen there. >> i'm one of the optimist here. this is a congressional decision to make. a lot of power is given to congress by the constitution. justices who say we read the words of the constitution. says you can't discrimination based on race in the voting process and congress decides how we enforce this provision. it's in text. when congress reauthorized in 2006 was 98-0 in the senate including alabama , mississippi smksmk and georgia. all the senators said we may be brister ling a little bit but this is good medicine.

opponents of the law who helped shelby county, alabama challenge it, hailed the ruling >> we've just elected a black president of the shell bill county board of education over a white incumbent. in a county wide election. >> african-americans are an integral part of southern political life and that's a good thing and that's never going to change. >> but writing for the court's four dissenters, justice ruth bader ginsburg said gutting the law that has helped end voter discrimination is like dloeing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet. >> that was pete williams reporting from washington. >>> it's a topic that's not sexy, rarely finds a lot of air time and can be you be popular politically, but yesterday, president obama stepped into the debate on climate change and picked a sweltering dale to do it. mopping his brow in the afternoon sun, he laid out the terms for the clean air act trying to cut emissions by 17% by 2020, compared to levels in 2005. the president would limit power plants, carbon dioxide emissions and called for government spending to promote

on tuesday of this past week in a 5-4 decision in shelby county versus holder, the supreme court struck down 4 of the act that provided the formula that governed which jurisdictions were required to have voting changes precleared. the court's majority held that section 4 was unconstitutional because it is based on outdated statistics. in 1965, mississippi only had 6.7% of blacks registered to vote compared to 69.9% of white. today, roberts noted 76.1% of african-americans are registered to vote in mississippi, compared to only 72.3% of whites. updating the formula used in section 4 would render that portion of the law constitutional. it is now up to the congress, the u.s. congress, to revise the formula. civil rights organizations argue that by striking down section 4 of the act, states may enact voter suppression measures threatening the rights to vote of communities of color across the nation and eroding much of the civil rights progress made since passage of the act in 1965. >> question, is the court right that the formula for applying the voting rights act needs to be updated? and i

so, this is very much -- >> can you -- explain for me, what was going on in shelby county that -- >> so, there was a city in shelby county, passed redistricting plan that eliminated the only black city council district. took it from 71% african-american to 29% african-american. he lost that election by a few votes under a map that was not precleared by the justice department. the justice department stepped in, said you need to change this law. you need to get approval for your voting change. they changed the way districts were allocated. that man was subsequently re-elected in the new district so now there is a black city council member. this is the kind of stuff we'll see without section 5. it's not just going to be on a statewide level. there will be all these very important local races that get no national coverage. this is where the biggest impact is going to happen. these are where the gains under the voting rights act are the most fragile and can be taken away most critically without anyone knowing. there's an irony, of course, of alabama, the state that's the birthplace of the

and that principal caused this problem you can't say the shelby county without showing actual evidence that they are violating minority they they were unable to demonstrate any are they were not i don't know they were demonstrating the harm the hard there was no assertion of harm they were simply saying we don't like this law strike it down no you can't do that shelby said we shouldn't have to get permission to make the changes we want and the federal government with its preclearance authority could have simply issued a letter to shelby and said you're right you're not a problem let's go and focus on where the problems were the first time that a problem they seemed as if they were being restrained then yes they were that's the whole purpose of the shelby case that's its origin and there were no specific and now congress isn't has been tasked with not not just totally ignoring a session but they have to create new you know more data or up to date. qualifications rights like i did two thousand and six when they heard fifty one witnesses and produce fifty two thousand pages of testimony a

the justices will decide in shelby county vs. holder whether 15 states need special scrutiny to change the voting laws which are primarily in the south. the legislation was enacted in response to jim crow laws. some say the voting rights act is outdateed. new detail on n.s.a. whistleblower edward snowden. the sons turning up heat on russia to arrest snowden. the foreign minister is lashing out at washington, dc, this morning, calling america's demands if have a addition "ungrouped and unacceptable." russia insists they have nothing to do with snowden or the travel plans. the contractor is believed hiding in now while he seeks asylum he checked in for a flight to chew -- cuba but never got on board. >> at 10:00 lat night a man was involved in a hit-and-run accident. a bicyclist was on the ground when the police arrived and a white car hit the man and took off the anyone withness is asked to call the vallejo police department. >> in 2015 san francisco will play host to the nation's mayors. the mayor lee announced san francisco will

the court is expected to issue a ruling next on shelby county alabama versus holder who challenges thevision that requires federal oversight over state and local voting rights in states that have a history of issues. do see an alliance between blacks in america historically have broken down the barriers to the voting box, and the hispanic americans that are fighting in arizona and had a victory in the court today? do you see a cohesion between these two groups now? >> oh definitely. not only hitspanic and african-americans, but also our native american brothers and sisters. they are affected by these attempts to suppress the vote like prop 200. arizona is a voting right state, we have to have preclearance when there is voter type legislation being introduced so the alabama case definitely impacts the state of arizona, but we have to continue to demonstrate that we are not going to stand for these types of bills that are going to hurt or discriminate against those folks that are poor or minority. we're going to continue to fight to make sure we have fair election laws, and cases like th

in that thinr point, the two cases tether, the shelby county case, the case in alabama dealing with theoting rights ac was another big victory for the state of alabama. really for the constitution because a lot -- allows states to be treated equally and recognizes 50 years of bad -- fantastic progress n race relations with i'm very proud of and leaves in place provisions that allow people challenge any activity by any government body tt they think depves them of their rights about. lou: and a lot to share with the audience, everyone watching and listeninto you, some statistics on alabama. because this requirement under section four that was struck down today and requiring, as a resslt, that its effect will be at section five willo away because section for a formula has been invalidated by the supreme court. but looked at wt has been going on, if you will. let's take a quick look at the statistics on the state of alabama. it actually has a larger percentage of african american voters registered and voting. less than 01 percent gap between black and white voters, and alabama black voters

a black president of the shelby county board of education over a white incumbent in a county wide election. >> african-americans are an integral part of southern political life and that's a good thing and that's never going to change. >> but writing for the court's four dissenters justice ruth bader ginsburg said gutting the law that helped it end voter discrimination is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet. >> interesting. pete williams reporting. reverend al? >> i'm confused. i'm genuinely confused here. the law stays in place. they take out the part though that targets these states that extraordinarily offensive diskrimnarily practices back in -- poll taxes and literacy tests and with to do anything to keep minorities from voting. and they succeeded. why roberts asks all these years later do we keep what is section 4b that targets the states who actually now have moral african-americans going out percentage wise than white voters? >> well, first of all, the fact that you have more going out does not go with his ruling. you have more going out b

very explicitly what the supreme court ignored in this shelby county decision. >> you have, it seems hear from congress, republicans were kind of using the same formula that i feel like justice roberts did in looking at the number of people, african-americans, latinos, who came out to vote, to make the argument, clearly there is no problem because all of these people came out to vote. which we talked about, when have you it wait nine hours or not sure your vote will be counted or you make it harder and erect these barriers for people to vote, that's what we are talking about. we are not just talking about the numbers of people. >> one of the reasons people were able to vote is because of the right it vote act. like saying it is pouring rain, i'm not getting wet, so i don't need my umbrella. it is irrelevant. out of date. i hope there will be bipartisan action to fix what has been broken now by the court and the voting rights act. a few years ago this was passed almost unanimously by congress. this genuinely is nonpartisan. or it has been. a number of key house republicans, like eric

ellis agrees to bring suit on behalf of shelby county voting the voting rights act was outdated.isher versus the university of texas is before the supreme court right now. we are awaiting those rulings, because he went out to find the perfect people to make this case. he is funded by god knows who may be responsible for genuine dismantling of law to make this country a more equal place, to address the history of white supremacy and racism. perhaps scariest of all, he is not some quirky outlyer. justice roberts, the chief justice on the supreme court was part of that movement. and richard bloom and justice roberts are a lot of like. they both preach a simplistic brand of color-blindness, saying the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discrimination on the basis of race. and we have our guests here, president and executive director of the committee for civil rights. you have written about this. i think i first learned of bloom when i was talking about him tkpa going out and finding these plaintiffs? do we know who is behind him? there is a guy that is working

likely that you would have to do this without any particular set of states or jurisdictions like shelby county itself being set aside for special scrutiny. i still think there should be heightened scrutiny for those counties and jurisdictions. >> michael: not to mention the justice department wanted to add districts and communities not district of states to that list as well. this exempts places that would already have been added in the next year or so to that list. it's not just looking back to the 50s and saying these near do wells to be on the list. >> congress has to act for that to happen. >> michael: that's what i'm saying congress has to be part of it. >> as you point out based on today in the last seven years since the last amendments were passed over 700 situations were blocked and changed, whether they were voter i.d. laws or whether they were redistricting maps, whether they were gerrymandering situations going on whether there were particular rules as to eligibility, voter rights, a whole number of rights involved where they were able to step in. they'll have to be bipartisan suppo