Early in his Presidency, Lyndon Johnson pushed for a voting rights bill which would clarify and strengthen enforcement of the 15th Amendment. Section 2 of the 15th Amendment states: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Johnson got his appropriate legislation - The National Voting Rights Act of 1965. One specific aspect of the Act, Section 5, requires certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to "pre-clear" any and all voting changes with the Justice Department or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Soon after, Congress extended Section 5 for five years in 1970 and again for seven years in 1975.

In 1982, Congress renewed the act for another 25 years and also amended Section 2.

Congress amended Section 2 to provide that a plaintiff could establish a violation of the Section without having to prove discriminatory purpose.

Before the 1982 renewal could lapse, it was granted another a 25-year extension signed by President George W. Bush on July 27, 2006.

That renewal was delayed at the time because Republicans had a problem with certain aspects of the Act.

...rank-and-file Republicans revolted over provisions that require bilingual ballots in many places and continued federal oversight of voting practices in Southern states.

Now in a case appearing before the Supreme Court, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, a Texas district is trying to overturn Section 5 of the Act.

The district's lawyer, Gregory Coleman, argued that conditions in Texas had changed so radically that "pre-clearance" was no longer needed. Justice David Souter and fellow liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed skepticism.

Project 21 has filed an amici curiae (friend of the Court) brief in support of the Texas District.

"The racist boogeyman of the past is just that - a thing of the past," said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. "I think most people realize this, but the civil rights special interest lobby has been strong enough to keep this boogeyman alive to the legal detriment of our post-racial society. As we try to move forward, our children will continue to bear the burden of long-rectified mistakes."

Project 21 bills itself as "The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives".

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) believes that The Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Section 5 of the act specifically, are still necessary to provide protection for the right to vote.

In 2006, after 19 hearings and in thousands of pages of testimony and documents, the Senate Judiciary Committee that I now chair found evidence in three critical areas:

> Even with Section 5 in place, covered jurisdictions continue to engage in discriminatory, often subtle, tactics, that play on racially polarized voting to deny the effectiveness of the votes cast by members of a particular race.

> Section 5 provides an effective deterrent against bad practices in covered jurisdictions.

> And Section 5 plays a vital role in preserving the gains minority voters have achieved.

I will refrain from pointing out that conservatives are attempting to use "activist judges" to overturn laws they disagree with and simply remind you of State Rep. Betty Brown (R).

Brown is a state representative in Texas. Earlier this month during testimony on voter identification legislation, Brown stated the following:

Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?” Brown said.

Brown later told [Organization of Chinese Americans representative Ramey] Ko: “Can’t you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that’s easier for Americans to deal with?

I think it is safe to say that Section 5 might still be needed in Texas.