According to this analysis, it most certainly does.

Does denying Florida delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention violate Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act? This Section essentially requires the U.S. Department of Justice to review - before it becomes operational - any change in any law, regulation, standard or procedure that might adversely affect minority voting rights in a covered jurisdiction like the Sunshine State. This "pre-clearance" process makes those advocating the change prove their proposed action will not have the effect of leaving minority voters worse off in terms of voting strength. Until recently, Florida's minority voters had the power to help choose the next Democratic presidential nominee. Historically, these citizens are overwhelmingly Democrat and have used the party's quadrennial presidential primary to express their view on which individual should be the occupant of the Oval Office. But recently, the Florida State Legislature pushed-up the date of the Democratic presidential primary. In turn, the rules and by-laws committee of the Democratic National Committee voted last month to strip the Sunshine state of it's 2008 convention delegates for violating the agreed-to national primary schedule. Assuming this decision is backed by the full DNC membership, it will be an unprecedented dilution of minority voting in the Democrats presidential primary system, in terms of Florida or any state, since the passage of the Voting Rights Act 42 years ago.

As they say in the law, this is Res ipsa loquitur: "The thing speaks for itself." Assuming neither Florida or the DNC backs down, the state's minority citizens will be subjected to the ultimate voter dilution. But what change is to blame, in terms of the Voting Rights Act? Taking away the Sunshine state's convention delegates punishes the wrong people: the voters, including millions of minority citizens protected by the most storied civil rights law passed by the Congress in American history.

According to this analysis, the Justice Department could order either the state or the DNC to give way on this one. And in one persuasive part of the essay, the author notes that since the decision to move the primary disenfranchised nobody (and was rationally related to increasing voter turnout by connecting it to another election) while the decision to strip Florida delegated explicitly disenfranchises voters, the easiest action would be to require the DNC to overturn its decision.