Changes to Voting Rights Act needed more coverage

Jul 1 2013 - 5:12pm


As a subscriber and reader of the Standard-Examiner, I was appalled that no front page mention was made of the recent set-back on voting rights by the U.S. Supreme court involving the historic shenanigans of some states to suppress the minority vote. Although the court left most of the Voting Rights Act intact, the ruling in my opinion, is indeed a set-back concerning the voting rights in those states where it has been historically difficult for minorities to vote  (June 26, "John Roberts' lame opinion on the Voting Rights Act").

My viewpoint on what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled may seem biased, but it is based on an awareness of prior historically unfair practices by the particular southern states involved. Surely an article should have been published reviewing the judicial process resulting the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the Voting Rights Act.

On the other hand, I noticed the June 27 front-page, bold headline citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling striking down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act as historic ("Court ruling called historic"). This is in my view, making a difference as to the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings. Shouldn't every aspect of one's right to vote be evaluated as important as one's right to receive federal benefits as a result of striking down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act?

In a recent discussion I've had, I was informed that many Utahns don't care as much about minority voting rights as they do about former restricted benefits to legally married, same-sex couples. I refuse to believe that. There is nothing more powerful and useful in bringing citizens together than information relating to both sides of any issue.

Betty S. Moore


From Around the Web