I found the following analogies, offered in response to the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the preclearance clause of the Civil Rights Act---the stipulation that certain U.S. states with a long history of discriminatory voting practice have to "pre-clear" changes to voting law with the Federal government---entirely apropos. <bq author="Ruth Bader Ginsburg">Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.</bq> <bq author="Stephen Colbert">The riverbed is dry; now we can tear down the dam.</bq> Defending federalism and states' rights is commendable and a strong priority. This goal cannot, however, trump all other considerations. The Supreme Court's decision is tantamount to defending a state's right to restrict civil rights in a discriminatory fashion---letting what has historically been called Jim Crow laws back out of the bottle. To offer another analogy, the preclearance states were sentenced for bad behavior, restricting voting rights based on race. This sentence has been commuted by the Supreme Court, releasing the States early for "good behavior", as it were. This, despite there being neither current good behavior nor the promise of such on the part of the affected States.