These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. ||||| Tweet with a location 
 
 You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more ||||| Story highlights A state voter ID law will "take effect immediately" in Texas, attorney general says 
 
 Supreme Court rules that key parts of that 1965 law are unconstitutional 
 
 Chief Justice Roberts says "our country has changed" for the better 
 
 Rep. Lewis faults court for putting "a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act" 
 
 The law passed at the height of America's civil rights movement, when citizens in parts of the country were fighting each other and sometimes authorities over how skin color impacts a person's place in a democracy. 
 
 Now, its present and future are in doubt after the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision Tuesday that key parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are no longer valid. The prevailing opinion leaves it to a divided Congress to revise the law, so that it's constitutional in the minds of a majority of justices. 
 
 The main reason for the ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts explained, was that "our country has changed" for the better. Deplorable conditions that spurred Congress five decades ago to require certain parts of the United States to "preclear" changes to voting laws "no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions." 
 
 The formula that Congress enacted as recently as 2006, to determine which areas are covered by the act, has "no logical relation to the present day," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. 
 
 "While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy the problem speaks to the current conditions," he said. 
 
 Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act – The Voting Rights Act is often called the crown jewel of the civil rights movement, yet many Americans do not know why or how it was passed. Pictured, NAACP Field Director Charles White speaks on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, June 25, 2013, after the court limited use of a major part of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, in effect invalidating a key enforcement provision. Here are some key moments and characters in the voting rights saga. Hide Caption 1 of 14 Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act – Three young civil rights workers were murdered in 1964 in Mississippi while trying to register black voters. The infamous murders showed that segregationists were willing to kill to keep African-Americans from voting. Hide Caption 2 of 14 Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act – John Lewis, a young activist who later became a congressman of Georgia, heads to a fateful encounter on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama during a 1965 march. Lewis was brutally assaulted by state troopers during the "Bloody Sunday" march that made voting rights a national issue. Hide Caption 3 of 14 Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act – Marchers during the 1965 voting rights campaign in Selma, Alabama gather for a rally on March 26, 1965, a few weeks after "Bloody Sunday." Black residents were beaten, fired from their jobs and imprisoned trying to vote. Hide Caption 4 of 14 Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act – Viola Liuzzo, a Detroit housewife, was murdered while participating in the voting rights campaign in Selma, Alabama, in 1965. Her death outraged the nation and helped spur passage of the Voting Rights Act. Hide Caption 5 of 14 Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act – President Lyndon Johnson, pictured here discussing the act with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1965, went on national television to call for passage of the Voting Rights Act. He ended his speech by saying, "And we shall overcome." Hide Caption 6 of 14 Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act – Rep. John Lewis speaks after bipartisan House and Senate officials met to voice support for reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act for an additional 25 years on May 2, 2006. From left, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and other officials listen during the media conference. Hide Caption 7 of 14 Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act – President George W. Bush signs reauthorization of the act on July 27, 2006. From left, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, look on. Hide Caption 8 of 14 Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act – President Barack Obama marches with civil right veterans during a commemoration march in 2007. Hide Caption 9 of 14 Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act – A conservative judge called the Voting Rights Act a racial entitlement but supporters of the act say it is the crowning victory of the civil rights movement. Pictured, people gather for a post-march rally after crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge on the "Bloody Sunday" anniversary, March 4, 2012. Hide Caption 10 of 14 Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act – Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Executive Director Barbara Arnwine speaks during a news conference to voice opposition to state photo ID voter laws with the Rev. Jesse Jackson and members of Congress at the U.S. Capitol July 13, 2011. Hide Caption 11 of 14 Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act – A supporter of the Voting Rights Act rallies in the South Carolina State House in Columbia on February 26, 2013, the day before oral hearings at the Supreme Court. Hide Caption 12 of 14 Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act – The Rev. Jesse Jackson, at the microphone, and the Rev. Al Sharpton, left, deliver remarks during a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on February 27, 2013, as the court prepared to hear oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, the legal challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Hide Caption 13 of 14 Photos: Photos: The Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act – Supporters of the Voting Rights Act listen to speakers discussing the rulings outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on Tuesday, June 25, 2013. Hide Caption 14 of 14 
 
 JUST WATCHED Rep. John Lewis: Ruling is a 'dagger' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Rep. John Lewis: Ruling is a 'dagger' 03:51 
 
 JUST WATCHED Voices from the voting war Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Voices from the voting war 06:01 
 
 JUST WATCHED High court halts key civil rights law Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH High court halts key civil rights law 03:04 
 
 Officials hailed the decision in places such as Selma and Shelby County, Alabama, which raised the case when it sued the federal government. But President Barack Obama did not, nor did civil rights leaders. 
 
 John Lewis is one of them. Born to sharecroppers in Alabama in 1940, he became a leader in the civil rights movement, working with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and others. In March 1965, he led hundreds protesting voting rights in Alabama when they were confronted by Alabama authorities after crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma -- an incident that became known as "Bloody Sunday." 
 
 Long a U.S. representative from Georgia, Lewis said what happened then is relevant now, and he claimed "numerous attempts to impede voting rights" nationwide still need to be addressed. To him, the high court decision -- which he said "stuck a dagger into the heart of the Voting Rights Act" -- is personal. 
 
 "These men never stood in unmovable lines," said Lewis of the justices, referring to voter registration ques that never moved. "They were never denied the right to participate in the democratic process. They were never beaten, jailed, run off their farms or fired from their jobs. 
 
 "No one they knew died simply trying to register to vote. They are not the victims of gerrymandering or contemporary unjust schemes to maneuver them out of their constitutional rights." 
 
 What the ruling says 
 
 Tuesday's ruling doesn't change the fact it's still illegal to discriminate against a person when it comes to voting. But it does change how some governments have been singled out. Unlike the rest of the nation, these municipalities, counties and states have had to get the federal government's approval first before they made any changes to their voting laws and regulations. 
 
 Civil rights groups say the Voting Rights Act -- specifically Section 5, the mechanism for the special treatment for some locales -- has been an important tool in protecting minority voters from governments with a history of setting unfair barriers to the polls. Lewis recalled some Tuesday, such as devious "literacy tests" or asking people to figure "the number of jelly beans in a jar." 
 
 "My own father, my own mother, my grandparents could not register to vote simply because of the color of their skin," he told CNN. 
 
 In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Congress passed the latest installment of the Voting Rights Act with "overwhelming bipartisan support," saying the representatives legitimately exercised their constitutional powers in doing so. 
 
 "The sad irony of today's decision lies in (the court's) utter failure to grasp why the (law) has proven effective," Ginsburg wrote. 
 
 But her view didn't rule the day. Instead, the ruling decision overturned critical aspects of the law. Specifically, Section 4 -- the formula the federal government uses to determine which states and counties are subject to continued oversight -- was struck down. Roberts said that formula, which was devised in 1972 and later reauthorized by Congress, is outdated and unworkable. 
 
 That means Section 5 effectively cannot be enforced. It relies heavily on the coverage formula to determine which governments must still run any changes by the U.S. Justice Department. 
 
 In his ruling opinion, Roberts faulted Congress for not updating "the coverage formula" last decade to reflect changing times. 
 
 "Its failure leaves us today with no choice but to declare Section 4 unconstitutional," he wrote. "The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance." 
 
 As Roberts noted, this doesn't make discrimination against voters legal, all of a sudden. But it does lift a key barrier to authorities in some states to make changes independently. 
 
 Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, for one, announced Tuesday that after the decision "the state's voter ID law will take effect immediately (and) redistricting maps passed by the Llegislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government." 
 
 "That basically gives a green light to these nine Southern states and a handful of other jurisdictions to change the law any way they want and basically say to the Justice Department, 'Catch me if you can,'" explained CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. 
 
 "It looks like these Southern states are going to start making changes. And we'll see how that's going to affect the right to vote in the relatively near future." 
 
 Should every state, county be treated the same? 
 
 The Obama administration points out some governments have gotten out of Section 5 under the now old rules. For example, 31 cities and counties and Virginia successfully petitioned to be exempt from the preclearance requirements in recent years, though the rest of the state remains under federal oversight. 
 
 The law had been working in preventing "discriminatory voting changes," Attorney General Eric Holder said. 
 
 Specifically, he mentioned how it blocked Texas from adopting a new congressional redistricting map that would have "discriminated against Latino voters." 
 
 Holder also said the Voting Rights Act changed how South Carolina will implement a law requiring photo identification before being allowed to vote. Those changes, he said, protected black voters who would have been "disproportionately" affected. 
 
 Obama characterized Tuesday's ruling as a "setback," even as he vowed his "administration will continue to do everything in its power to ensure a fair and equal voting process." 
 
 Voting discrimination, he said, still exists, and the decision "upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair." 
 
 Others offered even stronger language. 
 
 Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York called Tuesday's decision a "devastating blow for civil rights and voting rights;" New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo described it as "deeply troubling;" and NAACP President Ben Jealous called the decision "outrageous," because it makes minority voters "more vulnerable to the flood of attacks we have seen in recent years." 
 
 Rep. Marcia Fudge, chairwoman of the Black Congressional Caucus -- in a statement that included remarks from the heads of Hispanic and Asian groups in Congress -- slammed the high court for its choice "to ignore" reports that" racial discrimination in voting districts continues to exist." 
 
 But the sentiments were markedly different in Alabama, where Gov. Robert Bentley said the decision "reflects how conditions have improved." 
 
 "The justices correctly acknowledged that the covered jurisdictions should no longer be punished by the federal government for conditions that existed over 40 years ago," said Frank Ellis, the county attorney for Shelby County, where 11% of residents are African-American compared to 28% statewide. "The South is an altogether different place than it was in 1965." 
 
 Edward Blum, a conservative and director of the Project on Fair Representation , said Tuesday he's happy that no government is now singled out. 
 
 "This decision restores an important constitutional order to our system of government," he said. "And that requires that all 50 states and every jurisdiction have the laws applied equally to them." ||||| Note: We originally posted this primer on the Voting Rights Act case back in February when the Supreme Court was hearing arguments. We've updated it in light of the court's Tuesday decision. 
 
 The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a key component of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Below is everything you need to know about the decision. 
 
 What exactly did the court rule? 
 
 In a 5-4 decision, the court decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Section 4 dictates which parts of the country must receive pre-clearance before election laws can be changed there (more on that below). 
 
 “Section 4’s formula is unconstitutional in light of current conditions,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices.” 
 
 So in a nutshell, it will fall to Congress to come up with a new formula based on current conditions for figuring out which jurisdictions should be subject to pre-clearance. 
 
 Shelby County v. Holder 
 
 Back up a second. What is the Voting Rights Act? 
 
 Signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, the sweeping legislation was designed to prevent racially discriminatory voting practices. 
 
 
 
 President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act. (AP) 
 
 You mentioned Section 4. What is Section 5? There was a lot of buzz about that leading up to Tuesday's decision. 
 
 This is the part of the Voting Rights Act that makes it legal for areas with a history of racial discrimination to receive pre-clearance from the Justice Department or a federal court before making any voting law changes. The court did not pass judgement on Section 5 Tuesday, which means the Justice Department still has authority to decide which jurisdictions need pre-clearance. But the existing formula can no longer be used to decide which areas those are. So the reality is that absent new guidelines from Congress, Section 5 doesn't apply anywhere moving forward. 
 
 
 
 U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), left, and the Rev. Al Sharpton attend a voters rights rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Feb. 27. (Gary Cameron/Reuters) 
 
 Which states have been subject to Section 5? 
 
 Alabama, which was the subject of the Supreme Court case, and eight other complete states as well as some other selected jurisdictions elsewhere have been subject to Section 5. Most of the the states are in the South. In light of Tuesday's decision, these areas effectively no longer require pre-clearance. 
 
 
 
 (U.S. Justice Department) 
 
 Over the years, Congress has reauthorized Section 5 several times, most recently in 2006. 
 
 Why did opponents of Section 5 say? 
 
 They say that it is outdated. “The violence, intimidation and subterfuge that led Congress to pass Section 5 and this court to uphold it no longer remains,” said the Shelby County challenge. And as NPR noted, the formula still relies on election data from 1972. Tuesday's court decision involved Shleby County, Alabama. Shelby County Attorney Frank Ellis explained the opposition in this CBS News report: 
 
 What about supporters? 
 
 They believe it’s still a necessary preventive measure against changes to voter ID laws, district lines and other adjustments that could threaten the rights of minority voters. President Obama, who believes Section 5 should be kept in place, summed it up like this in an interview with Joe Madison of SiriusXM Radio: 
 
 What’s next? 
 
 All eyes will be on Congress. The question is whether lawmakers will come up with a new formula to decide which areas will be subject to pre-clearance under Section 5. 
 
 "We issue no holding on §5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions," reads Tuesday's decision. 
 
 Based on the major disagreements seizing Congress these days, there is no reason to expect accord on the matter anytime soon, though.
– The Supreme Court dealt what looks like a mortal wound to the Voting Rights Act today, striking down the law's key enforcement metric. The court did not, as some had expected, strike down Section 5, which gives the federal government oversight over states and localities with a history of voter discrimination. Instead, in a 5-4 decision, the court's conservative justices ruled that the formula used to determine which places require oversight is out of date, CNN explains. (The Washington Post has a quick primer on the law's specifics.) "Our country has changed," John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion, according to NBC. Congress must ensure that any law passed to fight racial discrimination "speaks to current conditions." The ruling puts the onus on Congress to re-draft the formula, and pretty much no one is optimistic about the deeply divided body's ability to do that. On Twitter, Dave Weigel voiced the conventional wisdom thusly: "SCOTUS to Congress: 'You have to pass a bill to fix this.' Congress: 'We can... pass... bills?'"