alternately rejected by that exception, the third reason tella as a recently pointed out, access to theuction congress prohibited certain states from disenfranchising statutory symbols >> let me go back to the congressional language in my question to you about reading the polls. section four, in which the adoption distinction was made between covered and the non- covered jurisdiction. it seems to me that you have a bizarre paradox with respect to disenfranchisement laws if they were somehow meant to be included under section two and he did not in the other non- covered your sections -- jurisdictions. how do those pieces fit together, particularly given this distinction that was made and continues to be made over a long time the best example of what congress intended was not to see if they have but the question is how we sit together to attack this with a scheme. in the best example to be learned from section four looking at the job, exempting the preliminary qualifications. there is scrutiny under section two, congress acted we feel that fell in disenfranchisement boswell in the positio