03/06/2013 09:00 am ET

Jon Stewart vs. Shelby County: 'Voting Rights Act Should Be Expanding Not Contracting' (VIDEO)

Now that racism is over, as evidenced by the election of President Barack Obama (two times, no less), there's really no reason to go on exacting federal limitations on states with the worst track record of discrimination. So says Shelby County, Alabama, anyway. Jon Stewart, however, isn't buying it.

"If you want to take out a loan but have a history of bad credit you may need to show extra documentation or get a cosigner," Stewart explained. "Or, if you want to move near a school and you're a sex offender, you have to run that by someone."

The underlying sentiment behind the argument against section five of the voting rights act seems to be that the listed states are tired of being discriminated against for their previous discrimination. Making that point, Chief Justice John Roberts queried during the Supreme Court hearing of the case, "Is it the government's submission that the citizens in the south are more racist than the citizens in the north?"

To which Stewart replied, "No, we've been to Boston." Bringing home the point, he continued, "I would put personal northern racism up against anybody's racism. But this isn't really about personal prejudice, it's about systemic discrimination. And if the last election is anything to go by, the voting rights act should be expanding not contracting."

Watch the full clip above and let us know what you think. Is Jon's sex offenders comparison fair? Do we still need these limitation, and should more states be on "the list"?



50 Reasons To Love Jon Stewart