Central parts of an election law dating back to the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the Voting Rights Act, appeared to be in jeopardy Wednesday after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a challenge to them.

NBC’s Pete Williams reported after the oral argument that key provisions of the 1965 law “are in big trouble. The question is how far will the Supreme Court go” in striking down parts of the law?

The justices were weighing an appeal from Shelby County, Ala., asking the court to find that Congress exceeded its power when it renewed the two key sections of the law in 2006. A decision is expected before the court ends its current term this coming June or July.

Under Section 5 of the law, nine states, mostly in the South, but also including Alaska and Arizona, as well as dozens of counties, townships, cities, and elected boards in other states, must get permission, or “preclearance,” from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington for any change in voting procedures, no matter how small, that they seek to make.

The formula used to determine which states and other jurisdictions are covered by the preclearance requirement is set forth in section 4 of the law.

“It’s pretty safe to say that there at least five votes to strike down” either section 4 or section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, “either the coverage formula or preclearance totally,” Williams reported.

Williams added what seemed to concern a majority of the justices was “the fact that the law is too backward looking.”

Shelby County’s lawyer Bert Rein argued that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act – which Congress renewed for another 25 years in 2006 – is unconstitutional because the formula used to determine which states are covered is outdated – based on voter turnout and registration data from 1972.

The blatant racial intimidation and discrimination in voting procedures that prevailed in states such as Alabama when the law was written in 1965 and renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982, no longer exist, the county says.

Overshadowing Wednesday’s argument was the Supreme Court’s decision in a 2009 Texas case, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One vs. Holder. In that decision, the court expressed doubts about the continued need for Section 5, noting that “voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity” between whites and blacks in the states covered by section 5.

Evan Vucci / AP

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of Calif.,speaks during a rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2013, before arguments in the Shelby County, Ala., v. Holder voting rights case. The justices are hearing arguments in a challenge to the part of the Voting Rights Act that forces places with a history of discrimination, mainly in the Deep South, to get approval before they make any change in the way elections are held. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said the justices should defer to the judgment that Congress made in 2006 that the coverage formula was “rational and effective.” To that Justice Anthony Kennedy replied, “Well, the (1947) Marshall Plan was very good, too, the (1862) Morrill Act, the (1787) Northwest Ordinance, but times change.”

Kennedy suggested that the law had the effect of denying some states of their right to self-government -- in effect putting them “under the trusteeship of the United States Government.”

Related: Landmark civil rights law faces critical Supreme Court test

Addressing the question of why Congress had extended Section 5 in 2006 with no opposition at all in the Senate, Justice Antonin Scalia said it was “very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”

He said for most members of Congress there’s little to be gained by voting against continuation of the key sections of the law. “I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution.”

But the liberal justices were quick to defend the sections of the law which Shelby County is challenging.

The court’s newest member, Justice Elena Kagan, appointed by President Barack Obama in 2010, said Alabama still deserved to be singled out for coverage under section 5.

She said section 5 “seems to work pretty well” in targeting the places where there are the most successful lawsuits under a separate section of the Voting Rights Act, section 2.

That part of the law, which isn’t being challenged in the Shelby County case, bans all voting procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Unlike Sections 4 and 5 of the law, Section 2 covers all 50 states.

“If Congress were to write a formula that looked to the number of successful Section 2 suits per million residents, Alabama would be the number one state on the list,” Kagan told Rein.

Kagan said that “under any formula that Congress could devise” Alabama would still be a targeted state.

Another liberal justice who defended section 5, Justice Stephen Breyer compared racially discriminatory voting procedures to a disease. “It's an old disease, it's gotten a lot better, a lot better, but it's still there,” he said. “So if you had a remedy that really helped it work, but it (discrimination) wasn't totally over, wouldn't you keep that remedy?”

But Rein argued that the high court ought to “remove the stigma” of preclearance from the states “and the unequal application based on data that has no better history than 1972.”

Justice Samuel Alito suggested to Verrilli that “maybe the whole country should be covered” by section 5 or “maybe certain parts of the country should be covered based on a formula that is grounded in up-to-date statistics.”

When Verrilli defended the section 5 of the law, Chief Justice John Roberts asked him, “Do you know which state has the worst ratio of white voter turnout to African American voter turnout?”

Verrilli said he did not, to which Roberts replied: “Massachusetts. Do you know what has the best, where African American turnout actually exceeds white turnout? Mississippi.”

Roberts then asked Verrilli which state has the greatest disparity in registration between whites and African Americans, and again Verrilli did not know.

Again Roberts answered Massachusetts. He added that in Mississippi, “the African American registration rate is higher than the white registration rate.”

Verrilli argued Wednesday that “changes in the polling places at the last minute before an election can be a source of great mischief. Closing polling places, moving them to inconvenient locations, et cetera.” He explained that Section 5 requires “those kinds of changes to be pre-cleared and on a 60-day calendar which effectively prevents that kind of mischief. And there is no way in the world you could use Section 2 to effectively police that kind of mischief.”

He argued in the Justice Department brief that Section 2 isn’t an adequate barrier against discrimination in voting partly because it places the burden of proof on plaintiffs who challenge allegedly discriminatory procedures, while Section 5 places the burden of proof on the states or counties to show that their procedures aren’t discriminatory.

This story was originally published on Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:12 PM EST

As the 40^th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision takes place on Tuesday, a majority of Americans – for the first time – believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

What’s more, seven in 10 respondents oppose Roe v. Wade being overturned, which is the highest percentage on this question since 1989.

“These are profound changes,” says Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted this survey with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart and his colleagues.

Related: Poll shows public lowers expectations heading into Obama's 2nd term

McInturff adds that the abortion-related events and rhetoric over the past year – which included controversial remarks on abortion and rape by two Republican Senate candidates, as well as a highly charged debate over contraception – helped shaped these changing poll numbers.

“The dialogue we have had in the last year has contributed … to inform and shift attitudes.”

View the poll results here

The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy.

According to the poll, 54 percent of adults say that abortion should be legal either always or most of the time, while a combined 44 percent said it should be illegal – either with or without exceptions. 

Recommended: Obama takes ceremonial oath, tells nation 'our journey is not complete'

That’s the first time since this poll question was first asked in 2003 that a majority maintained that abortion should be legal. Previously (with just one exception in 2008), majorities said abortion should be illegal.

In addition, a whopping 70 percent of Americans oppose the Roe v. Wade decision being overturned, including 57 percent who feel strongly about this.

That’s up from the 58 percent who said the decision shouldn’t be overturned in 1989; the 60 percent who said this in 2002; and the 66 percent who said this in 2005.

By comparison, just 24 percent now want the Roe v. Wade decision overturned, including 21 percent who feel strongly about this position.

Much of this change, the NBC/WSJ pollsters say, is coming from African Americans, Latinos and women without college degrees -- all of whom increasingly oppose the Supreme Court decision being overturned.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Jan. 12-15 of 1,000 adults (including 300 cellphone-only respondents), and it has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points. 

Related: 40 years after landmark decision, restrictions on abortion grow

Updated 2:56 p.m. -- President Barack Obama unveiled sweeping new policies Wednesday aimed at limiting gun violence, teeing up a political showdown that will pit the broad public popularity for many gun control measures against Congress’s tepid appetite for approving the most stringent restrictions on gun ownership.  

"While there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil," Obama said at a mid-day announcement at the White House, "if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try it."

Acknowledging the difficulty of the Congressional fight ahead, Obama appealed for public support, slamming - as he did in a press conference earlier this week - conservative commentators and the most vocal pro-gun activists for "ginning up" opposition to gun reforms for political reasons. 

"I will put everything I've got into this and so will Joe [Biden], but I tell you, the only way we can change is if the American people demand it," he said. 

Some of the main legislative proposals backed by Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are:

• requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales, including private sales    
• banning "military-style" assault weapons    
• limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds      
• strengthening penalties for gun trafficking 

"The most important changes we can make depend on Congressional action," Obama said. "They need to bring these proposals up for a vote and the American people need to make sure that they do."

Related Information: Gun Violence Fact Sheet | Gun Violence Executive Summary | Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions 

The president also signed a series of 23 executive actions - free from a Congressional blockade -- intended to strengthen existing laws, augment mental health measures and promote federal research on gun crime through the Centers for Disease Control. 

The executive actions announced included stricter prosecution of would-be gun buyers who fail background checks as well as new requirements for federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. 
 

The president's recommendations also direct administration officials to "clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes" and to "release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities." 

Obama and Biden were joined at the White House event by families of the Newtown school shooting victims as well as by four children who wrote the president after the tragedy that left 20 young students dead. 

"This is our first task as a society: keeping our children safe," Obama said at the beginning of his remarks. "This is how we will be judged, and their voices should compel us to change."

Biden, who led the presidential task-force on gun safety in the wake of the Newtown shootings, praised the activists who met with his staff over the last week to help build the list of recommendations. 

"The world has changed and it's demanding action," Biden said. 

While some of Obama's long-expected proposals - like universal background checks - garner overwhelming public support, the outlawing of certain types of weapons may be less of a slam dunk for lawmakers eager to appease constituents. 

A recent poll from the Pew Research Center showed that a majority of Americans -- 55 percent -- back a ban on "assault-style weapons," with 40 percent saying they don't approve of a ban. But a partisan breakdown shows that only about four in ten Republicans support such restrictions, compared to a broad majority of Democrats. 

Democrats in Congress have already voiced doubts about the feasibility of the president's most ambitious proposals. 

"We're not going to get an outright ban" on assault weapons, Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York bluntly said yesterday.

 "[Senate Majority Leader] Reid has said he doesn't know whether he has the votes (for an assault weapons ban)," she added. "There's heavy lifting, so are we going to waste time on heavy lifting? Or are we going to try to work on doing something that could actually get passed?"

Related: Obama's gun plans spark little enthusiasm with key lawmakers

Supporters are more optimistic about background checks and magazine restrictions. 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy announced Wednesday that his panel will hold its first hearing on issues relating to gun violence on Jan. 30.

In his remarks Wednesday, Obama anticipated opponents' reactions to his proposals. 

"This will be difficult," he said. "There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical all-out assault on liberty. Not because that's true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves, and behind the scenes they will do everything they can to block any commonsense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever."

The National Rifle Association, the country's most powerful gun lobby, released a statement Wednesday afternoon in response to the president's remarks.

"We look forward to working with Congress on a bi-partisan basis to find real solutions to protecting America's most valuable asset - our children. Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation," the NRA wrote. "Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy."

That statement was relatively muted in comparison to the group's controversial ad released Tuesday night, which criticized Obama's dismissal of the gun lobby's proposal to increase armed security in schools. 

"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" a narrator asks in the short ad. "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he's just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security."

Related: White House calls NRA 'repugnant,' 'cowardly' for invoking president's children in ad

The ad prompted outcry from observers who said the First Family should be off limits for such advertisements, while NRA backers say their focus is on school safety rather than on the president's daughters themselves. 

"Whoever thinks the ad is about President Obama's daughters are missing the point completely or they're trying to change the subject," said spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "This ad is about keeping our children safe. And the president said he was skeptical about the NRA proposal to put policemen in all schools in this country. Yet he and his family are beneficiaries of multiple law enforcement officers surrounding them 24 hours a day." 

White House spokesman Jay Carney shot back that the ad is "cowardly." 

"Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," he said. "But to go so far as to make the safety of the President's children the subject of an attack ad  is repugnant and cowardly."

NBC's Mark Murray, Frank Thorp, Ali Weinberg and Kelly O'Donnell contributed to this report.

Updated 1:05 pm -- President Barack Obama will publicly announce his gun-safety proposals on Wednesday, with new recommendations, including some executive actions in addition to legislative proposals like a ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines. 

"Tomorrow, the president and the vice president will hold an event here at the White House to unveil a package of concrete proposals to reduce gun violence and prevent future tragedies like the one in Newtown, Connecticut," White House spokesman Jay Carney said during a briefing Tuesday afternoon. 

Carney said that the president will be joined at the 11:45 a.m. event by children from around the country who wrote the White House with concerns about gun violence in the wake of the Newtown school shootings that left 20 children dead. 

He added that the president has previously backed a "comprehensive approach" including an assault weapons ban and a measure to ban high-capacity clips, but he stressed that both items will require congressional action. 

"The president will take a comprehensive approach, but it is a simple fact that there are limits on what can be done within existing law and Congress has to act on the kinds of measures that we've already mentioned, because the power to do that is reserved by Congress," Carney said of the need for "significant" action on gun control measures.

The president met with Vice President Joe Biden Monday - a day ahead of schedule - to discuss the Biden-led task force's recommendations after the group's series of meetings with stakeholders in the gun violence debate. 

Congressional officials familiar with the task force meetings said late Monday that Biden and his staff have developed 19 areas where Obama could use executive orders to institute new gun control policy.

Brendan Smialowski / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama speaks during a press conference in the East Room of the White House on January 14, 2013 in Washington.

The possible executive actions were not listed to the members of Congress who attended a Monday White House meeting, but officials said Biden mentioned new avenues for gun violence research as well as the strengthening of existing gun laws. Options pertaining to mental health were also mentioned.

Recommended: With House set to OK Sandy spending, efforts continue to add unrelated funds

The measures potentially implemented by executive action would be different than legislation regarding a possible assault weapons ban or a large magazine ban that may be introduced in Congress, officials said.

Conservatives have raised strong objections to the idea of any executive actions on the part of the White House, saying that the president's efforts constitute a violation of the Second Amendment. 

Freshman Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, has even threatened to introduce articles of impeachment. 

"Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible,” he said in a statement. “Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person — much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court.”

But Democrats have pushed back at the notion that any executive action would affect gun ownership or rights, saying that unilateral action from the White House will merely reinforce current laws rather than creating new ones.  

"There are many (options), but they all are directing federal agencies to increase or to activate more aggressively on items that already exist in the law," Rep Chaka Fattah, D-Penn., told NBC News. "The notion that he's circumventing Congress is not accurate at all."

Fattah was not at the meeting with Biden, but he said his staff was in attendance.

NBC's Carrie Dann contributed to this report.

President Barack Obama on Monday acknowledged that full implementation of his expected gun control proposals may be stonewalled in Congress but pledged to "vigorously pursue" recommendations from an administration task force, including a "meaningful" assault weapons ban. 

"What you can count on is that the things that I've said in the past - the belief that we have to have stronger background checks, that we can do a much better job in terms of keeping these magazine clips with high capacity out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, an assault weapons ban that's meaningful - those are things I continue to believe make sense," Obama said during the final press conference of his first term. 

"Will all of them get through this Congress? I don't know," he added. "But what's uppermost in my mind is making sure that I'm honest with the American people and with members of Congress about what I think will work."  

Obama said that some measures, like the lifting of restrictions on how the federal government can collect data about guns, can be accomplished by executive order, while others will require legislation. 

"Members of Congress are going to, I think, have a debate and examine their own conscience because if in fact - and I believe this is true - everybody across party lines was as moved and saddened as I was by what happened in Newtown, then we're going to have to vote based on what we think is best." 

The president is expected to review recommendations from the task force led by Vice President Joe Biden today in a private meeting. Obama charged Biden with leading the reform effort after a mass school shooting in Newtown, Conn., left 20 children dead.

"My starting point is not to worry about the politics," Obama said of the expected resistance from gun groups and many in Congress who are skeptical of an assault weapons ban. "My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works. What should we be doing to make sure that our children are safe and that we're reducing the incidence of gun violence?  And I think we can do that in a sensible way that comports with the Second Amendment." 

Addressing a question about recent spikes in gun sales, Obama blamed pro-gun groups for "ginning up fear" among firearm owners.

"Those of us who look at this problem have repeatedly said that responsible gun owners -- people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship - they don't have anything to worry about," he said. "The issue here is not whether or not we believe in the Second Amendment. The issue is are there some sensible steps that we can take to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can't walk into a school and gun down a bunch of children in a shockingly rapid fashion."

The U.S. Supreme Court term that begins Monday promises to be one of the most important for civil rights in decades, with the potential for blockbuster decisions on issues from race in classrooms and the voting booth to legal recognition for same-sex marriage.

Related: Conservatives warily ponder prospect of an 'Obama court'

Less than a decade after ruling that the nation's colleges and universities can consider the race of student applicants to achieve more racially diverse campuses, a practice now widely used by the nation's selective schools, the court has agreed to take a fresh look.

The new challenge comes from Abigail Fisher, a white student denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin. The school admits the top 10 percent of academic performers from all Texas high schools, then considers the race of applicants as one factor in admitting the remainder of an incoming freshman class.

Evan Vucci / AP

People who waited in line overnight to hear the Supreme Court on a landmark case on health care hold their belongings as they make their way into the court in Washington, Thursday, June 28, 2012.

Fisher did not finish in the top 10 percent at her high school and claims that the consideration of race in reviewing applications cost her a spot at the university. 

"There were people in my class with lower grades, who weren't in all the activities I was in, who were accepted into UT. And the only difference between us was the color of our skin," she said. 

The university, backed by civil rights groups, contends that while the top 10 percent plan achieves some campus diversity, many of its classes would have only a few, if any, black and Hispanic students without additional considerations of race. 

Making it harder to achieve the diversity colleges need, argues Gregory Garre, a Washington, D.C. lawyer representing the University of Texas, "would jeopardize the nation's paramount interest in educating its future leaders in an environment that best prepares them for the society and workforce they will encounter." 

The Supreme Court that will hear the case Oct. 10 is different from the one that upheld a race-conscious admissions program at the University of Michigan law school in 2003. 

"Sandra Day O'Connor was on the court then, and she's been replaced by Samuel Alito, who has much less tolerance for affirmative action," says Tom Goldstein, a Washington, D.C. lawyer who specializes in Supreme Court cases. 

O'Connor, who wrote the decision in the Michigan case, retired from the court in 2006. 

As a result, says Pamela Harris, a former Obama administration official in the Justice Department, "I don't think anyone thinks affirmative action is long for this world." 

Justice Elena Kagan, considered one of the court's liberals, will sit this one out. She was the Obama administration's solicitor general when the Justice Department became involved in the case in the lower courts. 

The Supreme Court will take up another racially charged issue this term if, as seems likely, it agrees to consider efforts to scale back the landmark Voting Rights Act. 

Passed by Congress in 1965 and renewed four times since then, most recently in 2006, a key provision requires states with a history of discrimination at the polls to get federal permission before making any changes to election procedures -- from redrawing congressional district boundaries to changing the locations of polling places. 

Three years ago, the Supreme Court brushed off a challenge to that requirement but strongly suggested that several justices had doubts about its constitutionality, given recent electoral reforms. 

"Things have changed in the South," the court said in 2009. "Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare." 

Pending cases ask the court to strike down the pre-clearance requirement entirely or throw out the list of areas, consisting of nine entire states, and of 12 cities and 57 counties elsewhere, that must get permission to modify their election procedures. 

The current map, says Bert Rein, a Washington, D.C. lawyer representing Shelby County, Ala., includes some localities that have made substantial reforms while missing other parts of the country that have failed to root out discrimination at the polls. 

As a result, Rein says, the system is unfair. "Florida has been forced into pre-clearance litigation to prove that reducing early voting from 14 days to 8 is not discriminatory, when states such as Connecticut, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania have no early voting at all." 

But Debo Adegbile of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund says the current map is a close enough fit to cover the areas of greatest concern. 

"Congress is not a surgeon with a scalpel when it acts to legislate across the 50 states. But it can reasonably attack discrimination where it finds it," he says. 

The court is almost certain to take up a host of challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. 

It defines marriage, for the purposes of federal law, as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." As a result, same-sex couples who get married in the states where such marriages are legal are accorded state and local benefits but miss out on more than 1,100 federal ones. 

After at first defending the law, the Obama administration notified federal courts early last year that it concluded the law was unconstitutional. House Republicans then took up the law's defense. 

A Supreme Court ruling striking down DOMA as discriminatory would not force states to permit same-sex marriage. But it would require the federal government to recognize those marriages where they are legal. 

The court could address the issue of same-sex marriage more directly if it takes up the legal challenge to California's Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state.  

Legal experts differ on whether the court is prepared to go that far, rather than deciding the DOMA issue now and coming back to the constitutionality of gay marriage in a later term. 

"We're not at the point where the Supreme Court will require the state of Mississippi to allow same-sex marriage," says Louis Michael Seidman of the Georgetown University Law Center. 

Among other questions the justices will confront: 

- Must police get a search warrant before taking a blood sample from a suspected drunk driver? 

- How far can police go in using drug-sniffing dogs outside someone's house? 

- Can a 1789 law, the Alien Tort Statute, be used to bring lawsuits in US courts for violations of international law that occur in other countries? 

- And, in an issue of growing interest to U.S. businesses, should more limits be placed on the ability to bring class-action lawsuits?

The Justice Department has approved Virginia's new voter ID law, expanding the kinds of identification that will be honored at the polls while restricting the ability to vote without showing any ID.

Unlike states with the strictest photo ID requirement, Virginia will allow voters to cast a ballot if they present a student ID card issued by a state college or university as well as documents that carry no photo, including a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, or paycheck showing the voter's name and address. 

Click here to read the Justice Department's letter to Virginia (.pdf)

The state already honors Virginia voter registration cards that have no photo, as well as more traditional forms of identification, including a driver's license or other government ID as well as an employee photo identification card.

The new law also ends the current practice of allowing a voter to cast a regular ballot simply by signing a sworn declaration of identity.  Under the new law, someone showing up at the polls without any form of identification will be allowed to cast a provisional ballot.  It will be counted only if the voter submits an approved form of identification within three days. 

But that action does not need to be carried out in person.  The confirmation can also be sent by e-mail, regular mail, or fax.  Many states with strict photo ID requirements also permit casting a provisional ballot but require submission of proof in person for the ballot to be counted.

Virginia's Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, has ordered the state board of elections to send every registered voter a voter card, one of the forms of identification the law honors.

"This significant step ensures that every Virginia voter is guaranteed to have at least one of the many different valid forms of ID required to be presented at the polls.

"The legislation I signed into law is a practical and reasonable step to make our elections more secure while also ensuring access to the ballot box for all qualified voters," McDonnell said.

Virginia is one of 16 states covered by the Voting Rights Act, which requires them to get federal approval before changing election procedures.  The Justice Department notified the state Monday night that it posed no objection to the new law.

Garrett Haake on First Read: “Mitt Romney said Wednesday that more restrictive gun laws would likely not have prevented last week's deadly mass shooting at a Colorado Cineplex, and argued that it would take Americans changing their hearts, not their legislation, to prevent similar future attacks.”

The Boston Globe on NBC’s Brian Williams’ interview with Romney: “Mitt Romney, responding to the deadly shooting rampage in Aurora, Colo., asserted Wednesday that the United States does not need stricter gun laws, saying they could not have stopped the killing of a dozen people by a lone gunman at a movie theater.”

The Wall Street Journal: “Mitt Romney rejected the idea that tougher gun laws could have prevented the deadly rampage in Aurora, Colo., saying in an interview Tuesday that a legislative remedy would not thwart people who want to cause harm.”

“Dan Gross -- president of the pro-gun control Brady Campaign -- tells The New Yorker that Governor Romney did more for Brady's cause than President Obama,” GOP 12 writes. But that was then… Nowadays: "Romney has certainly gone further out of his way to pander to the gun lobby during the election.”

“The Telegraph, which refused to identify the speaker, released a statement late Wednesday in which it stood by the accuracy of its story,” the New York Daily News writes. “Romney’s team, which questioned other recent news reports, including a Boston Globe investigation into the candidate’s time at Bain Capital, did not immediately demand a retraction.”

The Hill: “Rough start for Romney foreign trip.”

Charles Krauthammer says the answer to all of Romney’s problems is to show “he’s human”: "Romney has the ultimate edge,” he told FOX. “There's no way the economy will turn around between now and the election day; whereas, it's not inconceivable -- it's likely, actually -- that Romney can change the perception of him as a stiff, stolid, plutocrat who cares nothing. All he has to do is show up in the debates that he's human.... the minute Romney does, he'll win the election." (H/t: GOP 12.)

Sheldon Adelson might meet up with Romney for a fundraiser in Israel.

Actor Robert Duvall will host a fundraiser for Romney Sept. 6 at his home in Virginia. Here’s the invitation, obtained by National Journal.

*** Friday’s “Daily Rundown” line-up: Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA) and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) on the Supreme Court’s ruling… NBC’s David Gregory on the campaign consequences of it all… NBC’s Kerry Sanders with the latest on George Zimmerman’s bond hearing in Florida… More 2012 trail news with NBC’s Tom Brokaw, Demos’ Bob Herbert and the AP’s Beth Fouhy.

*** Friday’s “MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts” line-up: MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts talks with DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, former RNC Chair Michael Steele, Time magazine’s Michael Crowley, and all four co-hosts of MSNBC’s “The Cycle” -- Steve Kornacki, S.E. Cupp, Krystal Ball & Toure.

*** Friday’s “NOW with Alex Wagner” line-up: Alex Wagner’s guests include “The Newsroom” Creator/Writer Aaron Sorkin, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D), the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, USA Today’s Jackie Kucinich, and MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.

*** Friday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” line-up: Chis Cillizza, filling in for NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, interviews NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell and Miguel Almaguer, former Department of Justice Prosecutor David Rivkin, Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens, the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart and Ruth Marcus, USA Today’s Susan Page, National Journal’s Major Garrett and Medora Works Directors Davy Rothbart and Andrew Cohn.

*** Friday’s “News Nation with Tamron Hall” line-up: MSNBC’s Tamron Hall interviews Newsweek’s Zachary Karabell,  Dem strategist Jimmy Williams,  Natoma Canfield – the woman mention yesterday in Obama’s speech after the healthcare ruling, and Colonel Jack Jacobs on the Stolen Valor ruling.

*** Saturday's and Sunday's "Melissa Harris-Perry" line-up: On Saturday, Melissa Harris-Perry interviews, among others, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, writer Rebecca Traister, and former SC GOP Chair Katon Dawson. On Sunday, she interviews Dem strategist Karen Finney and The Nation's Katrina Vanden Heuvel

MASSACHUSETTS: Scott Brown called for Eric Holder to step down, the Boston Herald reports. Brown said on a radio show yesterday: “For the best interest of the country, I think he should step down and resign. He’s lost the confidence of the American people. Certainly he’s lost the confidence of Congress. He misled Congress. They have a right to know.”

Warren responded on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show: “Just one more politician. I mean this is really all about politics and playing this game in Washington. And the Republicans think they’ve got something here, and he’s just trying to see if he can turn up the temperature on it. I think this is why people get disgusted by politics.”

*** Wednesday’s “Daily Rundown” line-up: Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) on Holder, health care and more… Pollsters Fred Yang and Bill McInturff with a deep dive into the new NBC/WSJ numbers… NBC’s Luke Russert with the latest from Capitol Hill… More campaign trail news with the Washington Post’s David Nakamura and Ruth Marcus along with former Bush 43 White House Political Director Sara Taylor Fagen.

*** Wednesday’s “Jansing & Co.” line-up: MSNBC’s Chris Jansing interviews Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), David Corn and Josh Marshall, Matthew Miller/Former Spokesperson for Eric Holder, Steve Elmendorf and Joe Watkins, Professor Joshua Hawley/Former clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts.

*** Wednesday’s “MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts” line-up:

*** Wednesday’s “NOW with Alex Wagner” line-up: Alex Wagner’s guests include New York Times Magazine Editor Hugo Lindgren, Time’s Rana Foroohar, MSNBC’s “The Cycle” Co-host S.E. Cupp, MSNBC’s Jimmy Williams, Foreign Policy Editor in Chief Susan Glasser, and NBC’s Luke Russert

*** Wednesday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” line-up: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell interviews NBC’s Chuck Todd, Pete Williams, Kelly O’Donnell and Luke Russert; the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza and Rajiv Chandrasekaran; GOP economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, Families USA Executive Director Ron Pollack; and MEDORA Works Directors Davy Rothbart and Andrea Cohn.

*** Wednesday’s “News Nation with Tamron Hall” line-up: MSNBC’s Tamron Hall interviews the Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty, Michael Smerconish, Rep. Trey Gowdy,  Rep. Peter Welch, and Magic Johnson.