This is CNN Radio.
Now it's a fight for freedom.
And I did not have grandchildren of mine;
I had a grandmother of mine.
I wanted her, after having lived all these years,
to have at least the final years, where she could be treated with dignity and respect.
Banarr Lafayette wasn't just fighting for the future.
He was fighting for the past.
Lafayette was one of the thousands of men and women who rallied together to help pressure the government to pass the 1965 voting rights act.
I'm Tommy Andres.
Welcome to CNN Radio News Day.
Nearly 50 years after the passage of this ground-breaking civil rights legislation , we hear the stories of two of the men whose names will forever be tied to in the history books.
And what it means - to have a change.
We've seen the Martin King, one of the most brilliant men, and one of the greatest men of this country,
but this society hasn't change enough to truly accept what he fought for.
Only the victims have a right to say that things have changed enough to get rid of it.
President Johnson sends to Congress a bill to reinforce the right to vote.
But Attorney General Nicholas cuts in back.
The president signs in an accompanying letter to the legislators, urging swift passage for the bill that will outlaw the discriminatory practices.
Then the Attorney General briefed the press on the second features of the bill.
It will give his office the power to appoint Federal registers in six southern states, where literacy and other boarder qualification tests are required.
Times have changed.
You can hear in this sort of news clips about the signing of the 1965 voting rights act.
And today the Supreme Court ruled that the change has been big enough to move away from that law.
The voting rights act that passed nearly 50 years ago required nine states and serveral counties, whether with a history of racism, to get any changes to their voting laws approved by the US government,
in short, that'll oversight elections.
Now the Supreme Court didn't strike down the heart of the law, and on paper, that'll oversight remains, that's called Section 5.
But the court ruled a different section, Section 4, is unconstitutional.
That's the section that names the states' and counties' cupboard by the law.
But CNN's legal analyst Jeffery Tuben says, the law is pretty much powerless now.
What that means in practice, is that the other part of the law.
Section 5, which says those states have to be in supervision, that is dormant.
That doesn't matter anymore until and unless Congress goes back and comes up with a modern formula.
So as Tuben says, it's now up to Congress to figure out whether or not the formula should be rewritten.
And today Wolf Blitzer joined the course of CNN analyst who said that probably won't happen.
Politically, I think, it's unlikely that given the current makeup of the House of Representatives,
for example, it's very unlikely they will go ahead and reinstate some of these provisions from the 1965 voting rights act that were struck down.
the child of a person's son or daughter
He lived to see his grandchildren.
calm, serious, and controlled behaviour that makes people respect you
He would do nothing beneath his dignity.
a law or set of laws suggested by a government and made official by a parliament
The new legislation is highy discriminatory.
He has got brilliant achievements in the field of physics.
to treat a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc.
The operation of such discriminatory policies is known as regional policy.