Voting Rights Act Of 1965 ‘Gutted’ By Supreme Court: How Will The Decision Affect Latino And Other Minority Voters?

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to strike down a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The critical section -- Section 4 -- was originally designed to prevent certain states and districts from suppressing voting from certain racial groups. Under this law, they were not allowed to enact literacy tests or other screening devices to keep non-native English speakers and minorities from voting. The restriction has been applied to nine states and parts of six others. The majority of those states are in the South.

The high court struck down the Voting Rights Act's Section 4 because they felt the coverage formula - which was last updated in the late 1960s to the early 1970s -- for the law was out of date. Now it is up to Congress to come up with a new coverage formula. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion.

"In assessing the 'current need' for a preclearance system treating States differently from one another today, history since 1965 cannot be ignored. The Fifteenth Amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future. To serve that purpose, Congress -- if it is to divide the States-must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions ... Congress did not use that record to fashion a coverage formula grounded in current conditions. It instead re-enacted a formula based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relation to the present day," Roberts wrote.

Despite the ruling on Section 4, the law's Section 5 still stands as long as Congress succeeds in creating a new coverage formula that will adequately cover the states and districts in the country which are violating the voting rights of non-native English speakers and minorities. Section 5 is commonly referred to as the "preclearance provision" and requires the certain states indicated in the coverage area to get approval from the Justice Department or federal court before than can make changes to election laws. The nine states that were fully covered by the law included Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.

The unnerving bit for civil rights activists is that until Congress is able to recreate a new coverage map, Section 5 is effectively dormant, which could lead to an increase in attempts from states or districts to deter minorities - including Latinos - from voting.

Democratic Texas state Representative Trey Martinez Fischer told NBC Latino that had this Supreme Court ruling happened prior to the 2012 presidential election, about 750,000 Latinos would have been kept from voting. Civil rights activists claim that over 30 proposals to block minority voters from voting have been rejected by the Justice Department due to the Voting Rights Act since 2006. Advocates responded to Supreme Court's decision with anger.

"The Supreme Court has effectively gutted one of the nation's most important and effective civil rights laws," John Greenbaum, chief counsel for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law told USA Today. "Minority voters in places with a record of discrimination are now at greater risk of being disenfranchised than they have been in decades. Today's decision is a blow to democracy."

Just last week, civil right activists celebrated a victory of Native Americans and Latinos in Arizona. The Supreme Court struck down a state law that requires voters to show proof of citizenship. The latest decision was a case brought by Shelby County, Ala., Shelby County v. Holder, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12 -96.

Watch a video documentary "How relevant is the US Voting Rights Act?" created before the Supreme Court's decision Tuesday below.