I want to see the Voting Rights Act renewed. Like any product crafted in 1965, the law needs updating --- the states that had voting rights abuses 41 years ago aren't necessarily the states that have problems in 2006.

When first passed, the Voting Rights Act overturned the institutionalized discrimination embedded in the laws of Georgia and other Southern states.

As a result, Georgia today represents a model of voter equality for states with diverse populations.

In fact, an academic study documents that black Georgians vote at higher rates than white Georgians. There are nine black statewide elected officials --- most of whom defeated white opponents --- including our attorney general, the labor commissioner and three state Supreme Court justices, one of whom is chief justice. Four of our state's 13 members of the U.S. House are African-Americans --- two of whom represent majority-white districts. It would be difficult to find a state with a more diverse group of elected officials.

Today, our nation's best and brightest African-Americans flock to Georgia not for Freedom Rides, but for great opportunities and a high quality of life.

Yet, despite Georgia's revolutionary strides in voter equality, the Voting Rights Act still treats Georgia as if it's a backward society governed by the laws of Jim Crow.

The original Voting Rights Act created a formula to determine which states were denying minority citizens their right to vote. Congress applied the formula to the 1964 election turnout numbers and Georgia was one of several states that essentially failed the test. The law allowed the federal government to approve or disapprove all election law changes in those states, from redistricting to moving voting precincts.

Renewing the law as it is would keep Georgia in the penalty box for 25 more years. It doesn't make sense to subjugate Georgia to the whims of federal bureaucrats until 2031 based on the turnout of an election featuring Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson.

If Georgia's sins can never be forgiven, should there be an Accused Witch Protection Act that applies only to Massachusetts? Should our foreign policy treat South Africa as if it's still governed by a racist apartheid regime?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1966 that singling out states in the Voting Rights Act was constitutional only because it was "narrowly tailored" to address a specific problem and "temporary."

We're already well past "temporary" at 41 years and we've addressed the specific problem.

I'm proposing that Congress update the Voting Rights Act by reviewing states' performance in 2004 elections. Without these changes, I feel sure the law will be thrown out by the courts because its criteria are now outdated, arbitrary and decidedly not "temporary."

The Voting Rights Act has served our nation well. We dishonor the accomplishments of the law if we pretend nothing's changed since 1965.