I'm very much against Texas' plans to redistrict with the specific goal of giving more districts to republicans, and disenfranchise people at the polls.

But please correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the provision of the Voting Rights Act that got overturned the one that singles out specific states and gives the federal government direct power over their state laws?

If you watch the news or the Daily Show, the Supreme Court's decision to revoke this part of the act is a malicious attempt to pave the way for racist laws. But the part that says 'There is no prequalification to voting' is still there. All that got revoked was the 'These particular states need permission to make their own laws'. Is this reactionary outrage a form response, or is there something I'm missing besides 'States we don't like now get to make laws we disapprove of, which other states we like more could already do anyway?'

It's not "states we don't like", it's "states with a not too distant history of state-backed institutionalized racism". You can debate whether they've gotten far enough past that history that they aren't deserving of extra scrutiny any more, but given that a high school in Georgia made the news for holding their first ever integrated prom this year (!), I'm gonna say, probably not.

There has always been a provision that if the affected states stayed clean of violations for ten years then they could be removed from the federal oversight. The fact certain states were still in the program due to repeated violations is itself the proof that Voting Rights act is still unfortunately needed.

I would like to think it's their way of giving those states a chance to do it on their own without needing the government oversight, but I'm sure they'll take it back if they prove that they are still in need of the restrictions.

If my understanding is correct, the ruling didn't even overturn the bit that said some states had to get permission from the DoJ to modify their election laws, just the part that specified which states those were. As it stood, it was still based on data from the 70s. For the first few renewals of the Act they updated that data, but they haven't done that in decades. It's just on Congress to draw up new, current qualifications to specify which states need oversight.

As quantumcat42 noted, that would require Congress to decide that still need it. Regardless of the actual facts on the ground, the odds of the Republican controlled House voting that red states need such Federal oversight aren't all that good.

But the part where you're not allowed to add conditions for the right to vote is still there, right? The only part that got removed is the 'You need permission to change your voting laws'.

Now, I'm totally in favor of comprehensive national laws against jerrymandering. No state should be able to design their districts around favoring one party or the other. But it's still illegal for states to place qualifications on the right to vote.

Gerrymandering sucks. You should see my current district. All done to help Dingell stay in office. (and to keep the district solidly in the D corner.) Of course the Rs do there share of it to, just pointing out the situation in my district.

For poops and giggles, here's the so-called literacy test that they used to give to black voters in Louisiana.

The Sphinx called. He wants his blooper reel back.