(Continued from page 26)

ments with a history of discrimination to obtain advance approval from the Justice Department, or from a federal court in Washington, for any changes to election procedures. It now applies to all or parts of 16 states.
• In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that Congress developed extensive evidence of continuing racial discrimination just six years ago and reached a reasonable conclusion when it reauthorized section 5 of the law at that time.
• The appellate ruling could clear the way for the case to be appealed to the Supreme Court where Chief Justice John Roberts suggested in a 2009 opinion that the court's conservative majority might be receptive to a challenge to section 5.
• Judge David Tatel wrote for the Court of Appeals majority that the court owes

deference to Congress' judgment on the matter.
• "Congress documented hundreds of instances in which the attorney general, acting pursuant to section 5, objected to proposed voting changes that he found would have a discriminatory purpose or effect," Tatel wrote.
• Tatel said that in reauthorizing the law in 2006, Congress found serious and widespread intentional discrimination. The attorney general blocked discrimina

(Continued on page 28)