Ruling will allow
The thrust of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, was to make sure that states with a history of discrimination could not get away with their schemes of voter suppression. When they wanted to change something that would dilute the rights of voters, such as shortening voting days or hours, or even closing polling places in certain areas, they had to get permission from the federal government to do so. This was solely to protect the voting rights of all citizens.
One need only look at the 2012 election cycle to see that not only does this law need to be continued, but there are some states that need to be added to the list.
When the Voting Rights Act was overwhelmingly renewed for 25 years in 2006, Congress had the power at that time to change the formula to bring it up to date. Congress should have done it then, but chose not to. The Supreme Court says that Congress can do that now. But considering Congress can't even agree on where to go to lunch, updating the formula now seems highly unlikely.
The irony here is that all the states involved have had the option to be removed from the list if they could show that they are no longer engaged in voter-suppression schemes.
But since they have not been able to show that they are no longer engaged in voter suppression, one has to assume that they are still doing the wrong thing.
Prep player an example
of the nation's diversity
Regarding the July 3 story, "CAL star to play in Israel," about Michael Greenman, of Linwood:
What an affirmation of our nation's collective strength.
To read that a Jewish boy starred in basketball at St. Augustine's Prep, a Catholic institution, as did his brother before him, and is about to travel abroad to represent the United States in the Maccabiah Games in Israel says volumes about the strength of our nation's diversity.
DR. ROBERT M. GOLDBERG
Letter was right
Two thumbs up for the July 4 letter, "Trayvon Martin fought for his life":
As an invited guest in his father's home, Trayvon Martin had every right to be where he was on the day George Zimmerman shot and killed him.
Of course, as a resident, Zimmerman also had a right to be there. However, he exceeded his rights, as well as his responsibility as a Neighborhood Watch participant, when he left his vehicle to physically confront Martin.
There is no question as to who caused Martin's death. Many will call it self-defense and use Florida's "stand-your-ground" law as justification. However, I would question what ground Zimmerman was trying to stand on when he attempted to perform a job he was neither trained nor authorized to perform.
In a sad way, the incident reminds me of an episode of "Andy of Mayberry," in which Gomer tries to arrest Barney for making an illegal U-turn. "Citizen arrest! Citizen arrest !" Gomer shouted as he chased Barney down the street. It was a funny episode, and I still laugh at the rerun. Unfortunately for Trayvon Martin, in Florida, Gomer was carrying a gun.
Cape May Court House
to close dog park
Regarding the June 29 story, "Brigantine upsets dog owners by suddenly closing their park":
Kudos to City Council for taking the correct action. The dog park was supposed to be a temporary project. After five-plus years of the many negative aspects of having the dog park abutting residential property and being within 10 feet of people's front doors, closing the park was the only responsible action to take.
Most of the dog-park proponents were very understanding of the property owners' concerns and agreed that the location was less than desirable.
To those who disagreed with the decision, I would suggest that until a permanent park is opened, you invite your friends and their dogs to your backyard for the afternoon. I know you and your neighbors will very quickly come to understand that a dog park must be located as far away from residential properties as possible. My hope is a desirable location is found and a new dog park is opened as soon as possible.