denying insular people full of citizenship until the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments after the civil war to deny women the right to vote until the 19 minute 100 years ago, to poll taxes and literacy tests and the ku klux klan campaigns of violence and terror that lasted into the 1950s and 60s come to the supreme court decision in 2013 and then againjust two supreme court decision in 2013 and then again just two weeks ago, a decision that weekend the landmark voting rights act. to the willful attacks, election attacks in 2020 and then to a whole other level of threat, the violence in a deadly insurrection on the capitol on january the 6th. ijust got back from europe with the meaning of the g7 and nato. they wonder, not a joke, they wonder and they asked me
justice roberts said several years ago that congress needed to step forward and update the voting rights act. isn t this something that can unite all 50 democrats in the senate? i think so. but i think we needed something like this in order for some of my friends in the senate to understand how egregious these laws are. how do you say to a person who moved into another precinct, and you don t think about going down and changing your voter registration, you present your license, it s different from your address and then all of a sudden your vote gets thrown out. not even a provisional ballot. here in south carolina, we let you vote provisionally until we find out who you are. so i think the senate needs to take a hard look at this decision and then update its thinking on whether or not we should move forward with hr-1.
challenge the dozens of restrictions now being passed by republican lawmakers here is pete williams with that. reporter: in a major test of the landmark voting rights act, the court took up two restrictions in arizona, one allowing the state to throw out votes cast in the wrong precinct, and another that said only voters, their family members or caregivers can turn in a person s mail ballot. democrats said both made it harder for minorities to vote but by a vote of 6-3, with the court s liberals dissenting, the court upheld the restrictions justice samuel alito s majority opinion said all voting laws impose some burden, and they don t cross the line even if they create small disparities in voting as long as the state has some justification for them but in a blistering dissent, justice elena kagan said the court ignores that voter discrimination is getting worse. she said the ruling weakens the voting rights act, a law that stands as a monument to america s greatness and protects agai
one civil liberties say will make it harder to challenge those being passed by republican legislatures. pete williams has the details. reporter: in a major test of the landmark voting rights act the court took up two restrictions in arizona, one allowing the state to throw out votes cast in the wrong precinct and another that said only voters, their family members or caregivers can turn in a mail ballot. democrats said both made it harder for minorities to vote. by a vote of 6-3 with the liberals dissenting the court upheld the restrictions. justice alito s opinion said all laws impose some burden and don t cross the line even if they create small disparities in voting as long as the state has some justification for them. justice kagan said the court ignores that voter discrimination is getting worse and the ruling weakens the voting rights act, a law that stands as a monument to america s greatness and protects against its basis impulses.
passed by republican legislatures across the country. justice correspondent pete williams has the details. reporter: in a major test of the landmark voting rights act the court took up restrictions in arizona one allowing states to throw out votes cast in the wrong precincts and another said only family members or care givers could turn in mail in votings. the court upheld the restrictions. the majority opinion said all voting laws impose some burden and they don t cross the line even if they create small disparities in voting as long as the state has some justification for them. but in a blistering decent, the court ignores that voter discrimination is getting worse it weakens the voting rights act, something that stands as a momentum to the greatest.