Don’t misunderstand me: I think it’s great that President Bush finally spoke to the NAACP. I think it’s wonderful that he spoke in support of renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
But can someone please explain to why in the very name of sanity itself the 1965 Voting Rights Act has to be renewed?
Is a certain segment of America’s citizenry on probation, and if they behave well, they’ll retain their constitutional privilege to vote?
Why was it written to be reviewed, adjusted, tweaked and renewed periodically?
Why couldn’t they get it right the first time?
I don’t understand politics.
Blog In My Own Eye 
One of the few areas in my life over which I am totally apathatic!!
Explaining POLITICS is a pretty tall order, even for an old schoolmaster (We might do well to note the word comes from the Greek, meaning “of the people” or more exactly “of the citizens), but the Voting Rights Act? No problem. As you said, the act does place someone “on probation,” but it’s not the voters. The act gives the federal government the power to supervise and intervene in certain Southern states which have a history (pre-1965) of discrimination in voter registration through such techniques as poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses. The act is designed to expire every generation or so so the Feds can determine if the special supervision is still warrented.Those few senators and congressmen who voted against the act were in effect saying that such measures were no longer needed. Most, however, were unwilling to vote against something called a “Voting Rights Act.”But the right to vote itself is indeed quaranteed in the Constitution.Always glad to be of service.Steve
Thanks, Steve. I just needed a simple explanation to satisfy my simple mind. One was not immediately forthcoming, despite the broad and deep political expertise available among 21st century journalists of the internet.But I still have a suspicion that our country overlegislates and underenforces to a high degree.
“I still have a suspicion that our country overlegislates and underenforces to a high degree.”And you say you don’t understand politics!Steve
I agree with Steve that explaining politics is a tall order. But this may be more than mere politics. It may be an issue of biblical justice. Steve alludes not only to the pre-1965 era of the literacy tests, poll taxes and the like. But Many more may also point to the gains made after the Civil War during reconstruction and how those gains were systematically deconstructed by a white majority later.The Voting Act is a safe guard against injustice. It is a sad commentary on the state of our justice that we actually need such a law. So on that note I share your dismay. But American history has provided the evidence of why such a law is needed.I appreciate you coming by my blog. The Fred Gray post you commented on is silent testimony to the need of this law too and the state of biblical justice in our fair land. Shalom,Bobby Valentinehttp://stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot.com/