The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, a mere 100 years after the end of the Civil War in the U.S.. Basically the law protected minorities from discrimination in voting. While it took 100 years to draft and pass the law, it was a well written piece of legislation that was hailed as a landmark in the history of this country. Today the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Act as unconstitutional, effectively gutting the law on the basis of what I would call technicalities.
Section 4 states that the federal government has the burden of proof to show that new laws or changes in voting law were non-discriminatory in nine southern states. Effectively, the federal government had to "approve" a state voting law or a change in an existing law before it took effect. Such changes in voting law can still be litigated after the fact, but the burden is now placed on the presumed discriminated party and no longer the federal government. Before today the majority in power (the federal government) had the burden to prove a negative--no discrimination, which is a high standard of proof.
As we look at increased wealth concentration in this country, unrestricted PAC contributions and the ever present lobbying efforts of corporations, we should perhaps be concerned when the burden of proof on those in power is reduced, perhaps at the expense of fundamental constitutional rights.
In the original liberal tradition of Hobbes, Locke and Hume, the purpose of the government was to prevent undue interference in people's lives (and markets). F.A. Hayek, poster boy for the Republican party, popularized this view in the 20th century. Ironically, it was the Republican judges on the Supreme Court who as a majority today rolled back a law that prevented state governments from interfering in the lives of minorities. Maybe the Supreme Court justices need to re-read Hayek.