The Election is over, but the hysteria hasn’t subsided. In fact, politics is more entertaining now than it was before the election.

Actually, politics has become borderline obnoxious. Little attention is given to foreign affairs issues now, or even domestic problems, such as the upcoming review of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which happens to be one of the most important and most overlooked post-election issues.

For the past week, people have been so wrapped up in coming to terms with President Obama’s re-election, with some handling it better than others. People in numerous states have organized petitions and are now pushing for secession from the rest of the union (because that worked out great last time), the GOP continues its soul-searching mission to discover where they went wrong, Democrats continue to laugh at their misfortune and the fiscal cliff looms over everyone’s heads.

There’s also that one guy that has caused quite the national stir. Former CIA Director David Petraeus resigned from his post last week due to an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. This developing saga gets stranger by the hour.

With so much chaos occurring in the political world, it may be hard to distinguish the important issues from the ongoing soap operas. After elections, many return to life under their rocks for the next four years until it is time to come out again.

However, issues such as the Supreme Court’s upcoming review of The Voting Rights Act is why people should continue to stay attentive and engaged.

Many feel the nation’s achievement of its first African American president warrants The Voting Rights Act as outdated, useless and unconstitutional.

But this is not true.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was legislation to prevent the discrimination or denial of the right to vote, mostly among blacks. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the act also “contained special enforcement provisions” specifically designed for areas of the country (the South) with the greatest potential of discrimination. Section 5 of the law, the part due for review, states that jurisdictions under these previsions are not allowed to implement changes affecting voting systems unless approved by the Attorney General or the United States District Court.

Firstly, the overturning of the law has the potential to send us into a backwards time warp. The elimination of the act would potentially allow state governments to discriminate against all voters or manipulate voting systems in their favor. This was seen during this past election when many forms of voter suppression were prevalent all over the country.

For example, Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted shortened early voting periods, a method which is “disproportionally” used by African Americans and low-income voters. Latinos, African-Americans and elderly voters in Florida received phone calls telling them they could vote via phone, and other voters received calls informing them that the election was on Wednesday instead of Tuesday.

It doesn’t stop there.

Voters of all colors in Pennsylvania were asked to present ID when the state law only requires this for first time voters. In other places, people showed up only to wait in line for four to six hours, something President Obama said needed to be fixed as similar scenes continued to play throughout the country.

In large minority communities in Wisconsin and Ohio, there were reports of numerous billboards warning against voter fraud, seemingly aiming to discourage people of color against voting. Latino voters in Arizona were “over-vetted” for their identification and sent to cast provisional ballots.

The moral of this story? Voter suppression is real, and the elimination of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act only makes it easier for incidents such as the examples listed above to occur more frequently, especially among minority populations. Waiting in lines for hours, discouraging billboards and misinformation are all attempts to keep certain kinds of people from voting.

Still, with this current law in place we see many instances where election officials and politicians are maneuvering around laws and trying to manipulate them in their favor.

If this is happening with the law intact, the Supreme Court shouldn’t believe that its absence will curtail these problems.

As mentioned before, some feel that President Obama’s success contradicts the law and that it is therefore no longer needed. This is due to the large voter turnout amongst African Americans in which the majority supported him. However, President Obama will not remain president forever, and who’s to say that voter turnout will be the same in upcoming elections?

This uncertainty along with evidence of voter suppression is exactly why the law should remain. Although we are past the Jim Crow Era, these incidents show that the discrimination tactics and strategies live on.

Because of the amount of involvement of the federal government and changing demographics, politicians feel that this law is unconstitutional and hinders their chances at political success, surging a need for redistricting. However, politics is indeed a game and you can’t change the rules just because you are not winning.

Ta’les is a junior in Media. She can be reached at [email protected].