In response to “Students’ voting rights should not be suppressed” (by Jacqui Oesterblad, August 29):

In the article “Students’ voting rights should not be suppressed,” Jacqui Oesterblad is mistaken in her statement that the “enforcement mechanism of the Voting Rights Act [is] gone.” In fact, the pre-clearance process for making changes to voting policies remains the law of the land; what the Supreme Court invalidated is the section subjecting certain states to pre-clearance using data that has not been updated in four decades.

The Court did not invalidate pre-clearance itself, just the outdated criteria for pre-clearance; this problem could be easily remedied by Congress if it updates that section of the law.

Regarding Republican attempts to change voting policies after the Court invalidated one section of an expansive law, Ms. Oesterblad innocently asks, “What is left to stop them?” Perhaps she would feel better if she actually read the law, because every other section that prohibits various forms of voter disenfranchisement remains intact.

A state can still be subjected to pre-clearance if the Justice Department can show there is a systemic problem of voting rights violations, and it still has the ability to take legal action to fix them anywhere in the country. Imagine that: the government has to prove a state deserves extra scrutiny, rather than relying on formulas created half a century ago.

Today, black voter turnout exceeds white voter turnout in Mississippi, and Massachusetts has the lowest black voter turnout in the country. It’s obvious the country has changed, which is why the Supreme Court was right to put an end to automatically treating a group of states differently based on data gathered when The Beatles were hitting their stride.

Ms. Oesterblad is right to be concerned about the student voting problems in North Carolina, and if the policy’s “obvious illegality” is really that obvious, then she should be confident a court will save the day before the next election with an injunction. But North Carolina deserves its day in court, rather than being treated like a second-tier state, powerlessly bowing before the Justice Department, based on abuses that happened long before almost every student on this campus was born.

—Daniel Kinnear, graduate student

Online comments:
In response to “Humanities program should not be disregarded” (by Carson Suggs, Sept. 5):

Look into humanities in your free time as a hobby. Go to college and get a degree that will pay the bills.

— James

In response to “Lower drinking age can help promote safer habits” (by Wade Shields, Sept. 3):

If you are old enough to die for your country you are old enough to drink in that country. Roll the military enlistment age to 21 or return the legal drinking age to 18.

— DDogbreath

Or, you know, maybe we could do something to discourage underage people from drinking so much. Have you ever considered that? I don’t understand the obsession that so many students have with getting hammered all the time. It’s stupid and so are they.

I am a social drinker. I have a cocktail or a beer from time to time. I drink to enjoy it, not to black out and wake up with a massive headache the next day. Quite frankly, I find the whole thing to be somewhat overrated. We don’t need to lower the drinking age because people below the age of 21 don’t need to drink alcohol. No one does. This article is just ridiculous and does nothing to dispel the absurd attitude so many students have toward alcohol.

I recognize that people under the age of 21 do drink. I had drinks before I was 21. I admit that. That doesn’t change the fact that you’d just be making the problem worse if you legitimized their behavior. Let’s not open the floodgates and give carte blanche to the asinine people whose lives revolve around taking a metaphorical machete to their livers.

In short, my message to those people is this: grow up and get a life.

— thekevinshow1990

In response to “Transitioning to more chains could be lucrative for UA” (by Nick Havey, Sept. 2):

But with local businesses, that money stays in the community, whereas with chains it typically does not. What may make money for the UA is not necessarily good for the health of the Tucson, and larger Arizona community.

— Guest