Over the past couple years, we've seen way too many paranoid Internet chain letters that swore the government was coming to rip away African Americans' constitutional right to vote. Why people have this near-avaricious need to believe that the paterollers are coming for us is hard to understand.

But there is news when it comes to blacks and the vote: The Supreme Court upheld the Voting Rights Act of 1965, leaving it unchanged in a nearly unanimous 8-1 vote (if you haven't guessed yet who was the lone dissenter, look up). However, the decision comes with good news and bad.



The good news is that the justices found "no need at the moment" to make any changes to Section 5 of the act, which deals with pre-clearance to change voting procedures in certain states, mainly in the South, which has had a historic tendency to deny voting rights to African Americans. The section was reportedly reauthorized by Congress in 2006 for another 25 years and has thankfully been allowed to stand.

But the bad news is that the section is likely to go through future scrutiny and may attract the same attention as the rest of the act, which conservatives have long viewed as outdated or unnecessary. And that leaves the act vulnerable and, in large part, the strength of minority voters in general.

Now, the 15th Amendment speaks to the right to vote and clearly states:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This means two things: You can vote, and Congress can create laws to make sure you can vote, which is why it was able to create the Voting Rights Act.

Now, the legislation was written to deal specifically with jurisdictions where government intervention was needed when it came to denying African Americans at the polls. Those areas specified have to get "pre-clearance" from the U.S. attorney general or the District of Columbia U.S. District Court before they make any changes to their voting procedures.

But to those who have their sights set on the Voting Rights Act, saying it's overkill, this is a perfect target. Many will say it unfairly scrutinizes particular areas based on prior history. But the purpose of Section 5 was never to scrutinize certain states or districts. It was to be sure that minorities were never left at an electoral disadvantage. Remove Section 5 and you allow people who want to pick at the Voting Rights Act an open door to do so.

This country has a long history of political strong-arming and gerrymandering by local authorities, which has left blacks and others minorities bitter about the voting process. Hence, a lawsuit brought just after the 1965 act was passed in New York's Bedford-Stuyvesant section that resulted in the creation of the 12th Congressional District and election of the late Rep. Shirley Chisholm.

Despite the short-sighted assumption by some that we don't need a Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court was wise to recognize the reasons behind ensuring that local provisions do not supercede federal statutes, not only when it comes to voting but also with the power people wield when they vote.