The Supreme Court's decision Monday to uphold key parts of the Voting Rights Act means that broad swaths of the South, including Texas, will still need to get the federal government's approval before making changes to election procedures. In a narrowly tailored 8-1 ruling, the high court allowed a utility district in Austin, Texas, to opt out of the pre-clearance requirements of the federal Voting Rights Act because of its unblemished record free of racial discrimination. Voting rights experts said the ruling would still require Texas to seek Justice Department approval for any voter ID bill the legislature might approve, as well as for congressional and legislative redistricting plans. But the court's majority decision, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, opens the door for additional legal challenges from the more than 12,000 cities, counties and other jurisdictions that still must get the Justice Department's approval before redrawing political districts, imposing new voting mandates and making other electoral changes. Hans von Spakovsky, a former legal counsel at the Justice Department, said the decision 'leaves the courts wide open to further challenges' from smaller jurisdictions pursuing similar exemptions to the Voting Rights Act. The high court's decision preserved the vast majority of the 44-year-old Voting Rights Act, which Congress renewed in 2006. The law allows jurisdictions to ask courts for a 'bailout' -- or exemption from the pre-clearance requirement -- if they have a 10-year record free of discrimination. Smaller regions generally are better positioned to prevail in court, because they are less likely to have long, documented records of discrimination, said Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas state conference of the NAACP. Bledsoe argued that the pre-clearance rules are still needed throughout Texas, where, he said, there continue to be 'serious problems with voter intimidation' and irregularities at the voting booth. Civil rights advocates widely cheered the Supreme Court's ruling because of its narrow reach. They had feared the high court would issue a broad decision on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act and perhaps toss out the pre-clearance portion of the law. Bill Yoemans, legal director for the Alliance for Justice, a coalition of civil rights groups, said the ruling ensures 'the Voting Rights Act is preserved.' He added that 'for now, the law, as Congress wrote it, will continue to be law.' For states subject to pre-clearance requirements, the decision could have profound implications for redistricting decisions made after the 2010 census. Matt Angle, founder of the Lone Star Project, a Democratic group, and a redistricting expert, said the decision ensures that any redistricting plan adopted by the Texas legislature will have to win advance approval from a Justice Department administered by the Obama administration. In contrast, Republican political appointees in George W. Bush's Justice Department in 2003 overruled career staffers who believed that the Republican-drawn Texas redistricting plan discriminated against minorities. 'This is the first time since the Voting Rights Act passed that you have a Justice Department administered by a Democrat reviewing redistricting plans,' Angle said. The decision also could cast cold water on voter ID legislation that might be included on the agenda of the upcoming special session of the Texas legislature. Under President Obama, the Justice Department has objected to a Georgia proposal to match voter IDs to state licenses -- a signal that any similar Texas measure could be rejected for violating minority voting rights. After the Georgia decision, Angle said, 'it would be a colossal waste of time and money for Texas' to approve a voter ID law. Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said the statute has been a key in combating discrimination in the Lone Star State. 'Texas has had a long, brutal and shameful history of denying the right to vote and creating mechanisms to undermine and deny proper representation,' Harrington said. The Voting Rights Act 'helped reverse that sad saga.' The only Supreme Court dissenter was Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's only African American. Thomas argued that the Voting Rights Act had served its purpose. Thomas wrote that the 'violence, intimidation and subterfuge' that led to the act's adoption 'no longer remains.' (Jennifer A. Dlouhy can be reached at 202-263-6400 or at the e-mail address jdlouhy(a)hearstdc.com and Jennifer.dlouhy(a)chron.com.) (Hillary Sorin can be reached at 202-263-6500 or at the e-mail address hillary.sorin(a)chron.com.) VOTING RIGHTS ACT States covered by the Voting Rights Act: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. States with some jurisdictions subject to Justice Department review of voting changes: California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Michigan and New Hampshire. 