History of Voting Rights in America

Voting rights in the USA have expanded exponentially from the time the Constitution was instated. But, it was absolutely vital to maintain the vision of a free country. There is nothing free about a country that leaves out minority groups or those that don't own land. It does not match the ideals that we have all mostly grown up with. So, why are we seeing an explosion over voting rights in the 21st century? Well let's go back. 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a historic civil rights law that was put in place to ensure that the right to vote is not denied on account of race or color. 1965. Wow. That is only 57 years ago. It is also only 98 years after citizenship was gained by all native-born Americans. 

1867
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 grants citizenship, but not the right to vote, to all native-born Americans. 

1869
The Fifteenth Amendment is passed by Congress, giving African American men the right to vote. 

1896
Following Reconstruction, Louisiana passes "grandfather clauses" to keep former slaves and their descendants from voting. This in turn dropped the registered black voters from 44.8% to 4% just 4 years later. Other states that enacted their own grandfather clauses include Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama and Virginia.

1940
A whole 3% of eligible African American voters are registered to vote in the South. Jim Crow laws included poll taxes and literacy tests to keep African Americans from voting. 

1964
Due to the passage of the 24th Amendment, poll taxes are eliminated. 

1965
While attempting to march from Selma to Montgomery, AL to demand the need for African Americans to vote, more that 500 non-violent, civil rights marchers are attacked by law enforcement officers. 

1965
President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act into law. This law permanently barred any barriers to political participation by racial and ethnic minorities. This also prohibited any election practice that denied the right to vote on account of race. This also required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination in voting to get federal approval for changes in their election laws before they can take effect. This act set the precedence for severe intervention in voting rights by the federal government since the Fifteenth amendment was passed. 

1965
By the end of 1965, approximately 250,000 new black voters are registered. A third of those registered were done by federal examiners. 

1970
Richard Nixon signed an extension of the Voting Rights Act. 

1972
Barbara Jordan of Houston and Andrew Young of Atlanta become the first African Americans elected to Congress in the South since the Reconstruction. 

1975
President Gerald Ford signed an extension of the Voting Rights Act. 

1982
President Ronald Reagan signed a 25-year extension to the Voting Rights Act.

1990
Prior to the passing of the VRA, Georgia had only 3 black elected officials. Due in part to the passing of the VRA, this number grew to 495 in 1990. 

2006
Congress extended Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by an additional 25 years. 

https://www.yourvoteyourvoicemn.org/key-provisions-voting-rights-act-1965

SECTION 5 OF THE VRA

Preclearance under Section 5 of the Act is defined as those jurisdictions identified under the Act that wanted to change laws and practices affecting voting were required to submit the change along with a letter explaining the change to the Department of Justice.

The jurisdiction must demonstrate that the change does "not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color [or membership in a language minority group]." Citizens may submit comments to the Department of Justice on how the proposed change will affect their community. Within 60 days, the department responds either by approving or "preclearing" the change or by objecting to it.

An objection bars the jurisdiction from implementing the proposed change. If an objection is issued and a jurisdiction wishes to appeal, the jurisdiction may seek preclearance through the D.C. District Court. The jurisdiction may alternatively preclear its changes through a lawsuit in the D.C. District Court.


2011
South Carolina, Texas, and Florida tried to pass restrictions to voting, which are found to disproportionately impact minority voters.

2010 to Present
In 2010 alone, the Department of Justice has had 18 Section V objections to voting laws in Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi and Louisiana. 

2011
States required federal approval in changes to voting rights laws include: New York, New Hampshire, Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Arizona, California, South Dakota and Alaska. 

In 2011, there was a record number of restrictions to voting that was introduced to legislatures nationwide. These restrictions included Voter ID requirements, cuts to early voting and restrictions to voter legislation. 

2011
Florida passe

d a law that restricts voter registration and made cuts to early voting. This disproportionately affect the black communities who relied heavily on early voting to pass a ballot and register to vote through community based registration efforts.

2011
Texas passed one of the most restrictive voter ID laws in the country. The court blocked the law citing racial impact. , Under Section V of the VRA, Texas is required to submit the law to the Department of Justice or to the DC federal district court for approval. 

"Court Blocks Texas Voter ID Law, Citing Racial Impact"

Links to a New York Times article. The photo reads: Must Show ID to Vote

2011
The DOJ blocked South Carolina from enacting South Carolina's voting ID law, again saying it discriminates against minority voters. Later the DC federal court precleared the law, but only because South Carolina agreed that a voter ID was not required to vote. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-dept-rejects-south-carolina-voter-id-law-calling-it-discriminatory/2011/12/23/gIQAhLJAEP_story.html

Links to a Washington Post article. 

2011
South Carolina passed a restrictive voter ID law that would keep more than 180,000 African Americans from casting a ballot.

https://www.aclu.org/other/karen-rutherford-making-it-harder-poor-people-black-people-and-college-students-vote?redirect=voting-rights/karen-rutherford-making-it-harder-poor-people-black-people-and-college-students-vote

Links to ACLU article.

2013
The Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Voting Rights Act by rendering ineffective the requirement that certain jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination get pre-approved for voting changes. Many states have taken no time in enacting potentially discriminatory voting rights laws. 

Why should Congress Act? So we the people suffer as little injustices across the United States as possible. We are all apart of this nation. All minorities, ages, employment, disabilities, etc. When we fail one group of people it is just a matter of time before our rights are fully eroded. Corporations should not be allowed to write laws that affect a far greater majority of people. Citizens have a right to vote in this country in all levels of our government without redistricting to favor one party or another. Without our rights being eroded to include voting by mail, early voting, etc. The right to vote is an American right, it is not a privilege of a special group of people. The fight for rights should not be eroded by states as voting is not a states rights issue. Voting rights is a federal issues and should remain a federal issue that creates standards across the board that do not allow states to undermine people's right to vote. 

Victoria Fuller 


Other Sources:

https://www.aclu.org/voting-rights-act-major-dates-history

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Parenting is Not for the Weak

 One of the things I have realized is that parenting is not for the weak. Today I was told I was the worst mommy several times by my 4 year old boy. I was also told I was the best mommy. But everyday is like negotiating with a terrorist. I should get paid for the amount of negotiating I have to do. And I am not talking bribes here, but negotiating a truce or explaining the facts of life (it is a negotiation just to get this far). Currently my husband and I are working on fixing up our home. We were able to add on two additional rooms to separate out two four year old boys. Every time I turned around there was either a whole in the wall or poop on the wall or hot chocolate on the wall. There is even poop on the ceiling. The boys are brothers, but they are 3 months apart as we adopted the older of the two boys. Last year I tore out all of the carpet in my living room and recently just finished ripping out the carpet in the bedrooms and replacing them with sticky tiles and planks. Wha...
Read more

ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council Brief History)

  The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a nonprofit organization that was founded in 1973. ALEC's mission is to promote free-market, limited-government policies at the state level by bringing together state legislators and corporate representatives to draft model legislation. The idea for ALEC was developed by a group of conservative activists who were concerned about the increasing influence of the federal government on state and local affairs. They believed that by developing model legislation at the state level, they could promote conservative policies and counteract what they saw as the liberal agenda of the federal government. In its early years, ALEC focused primarily on economic and fiscal issues, promoting policies such as tax cuts, deregulation, and privatization. However, in the 1990s, the organization began to expand its focus to include social issues such as criminal justice, education, and healthcare. ALEC's model legislation has had a significant imp...
Read more

Putin is a Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

According to Sandra Knispel, Putin has made historically doubtful claims about the unity of Russia and Ukraine, most notably his assertion in his defense of invading Ukraine as being due to their history of being "one people," which he asserted in his July 2021 essay on Russians and Ukrainians alleged historical unity (Knispel 1). Putin argues that Ukraine is an integral part of Russia as it has never been a nation or a state (Knispel 1). He further argues that both countries share a common history and heritage, that of Kievan Rus (862-1242), which combined parts of modern-day Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine into a loose medieval political federation (Knispel 1). However, as argued by Prof. Matthew Lenoe, Putin's claims may only be convincing in that the Slavic people shared a common heritage, and that is where the claim ends (Knispel 1). Prof. Lenoe notes the inability to trace a continuous line from this loose federation to the Russian or Ukrainian states (Knispel 1). He a...
Read more