Voting Rights Case Study

The Supreme Court held that Section 4(b) did indeed exceed Congress’s power to enforce the 14th and 15th amendments and that the coverage formula conflicts with the principles of federalism and there is no longer disparate treatment or any signs of voter discrimination and that when section 4(b) was enacted it was based on events that happened over 40 years ago. The Supreme Court concluded that Congress cannot force states to be under preclearance based upon their past discrimination, especially since Section 4(b) hadn’t been renewed or had any modifications made to it since 1975. The Courts stated that “The Amendment is not designed to punish for the past, its purpose is to ensure a better future” . The majority opinion in the case was that

The natural born Citizen clause in Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution has caused much controversy and its meaning has been deeply argued. It may be in our best interest if the clause were to be reworded to make the meaning of the clause clear so there can be no discrepancies, ending

In 2013 a court case “Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder” that challenged the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was an act that …..was unconstitutional because it was based off of old data and no longer applied to those certain nine states which were Alabama, Texas, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana and Virginia. (Excerpt from Shelby County, Ala. V. Holder) The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder was unjust because it abolished Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act which protected minorities from voting discrimination in the South and caused a step back on the path to full equality because those nine states will go back to their ways where they discriminated and hindered African American and minorities from voting because they no longer have the authority of the Voting Rights Act over their heads.

Few facts about the case is that this case was related back and forth to the Reynolds v. slims (1964) cases which is the cases where the “one person, one vote” developed. This case brought up many questions such as Is it even feasible to move from total population to eligible voter standard? What is the basic constitutional value that one person, one vote serves? Some were against the case some were not but the ones who were, were mostly people that did not live in cities. Some argument was that they saw no issue and then others saw it as a problem. Furthermore, due to the fact that Texas uses total population in each district, it created an issue with both Texas residents Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger.

Shaw provides a good point when he states: “Going through rehabilitation and reintegration, ex-felons become part of a law-abiding society with the same privileges as others in the society, proponents for voting rights argue.” If they go through these things to become a part of society again, then why are they not allowed the right to vote? This must be an upsetting process for those felons that want to become a part of society again and actually care to make a difference. All that they want to do is to be granted one of the basic fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. I mean that’s the least they should get after going through the process that they do. It is only fair for them to obtain the right to vote again because at the end of the day they did what was required of them to become a part of society again and what is the use of that if they cannot even vote?

This incident was captured on T.V. The voting rights bill was passed by the U.S senate by a 77-19 vote on May 26th of that year. After debating the bill for more than a month the U.S house of representatives passed the bill by a vote of 333-85 on July 9th. Johnson signed the voting rights act into law on August 6th by Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders present at the ceremony. Prior to the Civil war, African Americans were almost totally disenfranchised throughout the states. Latino voters faced similar barriers to voting in Texas and other parts of the southwest. Native Americans and Asian Americans voters in the west did the same. Even after enactment of the 15th amendment to the constitution in 1870, which gave all men, regardless race, color, or previous condition of servitude of the right to vote, many states continued to use various methods to prevent people of color from voting, including literacy tests and poll taxes which most blacks could not afford. Disenfranchisement to former inmates threats and even violence. Also until 1965, federal laws did not challenge the authority of the state and localities to establish and administer their own voting

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court made its final decision on the Shelby County, Alabama v Holder, deeming Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress in 1965 and extended several times, unconstitutional. Section 5, although not being struck down, became insignificant without its triggering formula, Section 4, to determine the coverage. This Supreme Court decision took away the key parts of the Voting Rights Act, which was an important method for the federal government to oversee and enforce the enfranchisement of African-Americans in some states. While justifying their decision, the Court mentioned that Section 4 only applied to specific states and it was against the idea of equal sovereignty of all states in the Constitution. What is more, the Congress’ justification of these unequal actions towards those states in 2006, was based on 40-year old data showing that it was still an exceptional condition, which cannot reflect the current situations and needs of the country.

This article, “Swing State Rulings on Restrictive Voting Laws… (etc),” is an article that is set to highlight the inequality that is a result from laws put in place to not allow certain people the ability to vote. While many of these laws are packaged to look like something to prevent voter fraud, or other purposes, they are often times just a Jim Crowe law, in a different costume.

Due to the U.S. Constitutions failure to provide that all Americans are to maintain their right to vote, as Americans wait in line to cast their vote on election day, State Legislatures deny an average of 5 to 6 million Americans this basic fundamental “right”! - and its perfectly constitutional for them to do so – again, so long as the “Civil Rights” Amendments are not violated.

---- was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution.

The Voting Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973 et seq., decision is important regarding the laws governing voting rights and their relationship to minority voters. Its implication and effects however does not end within the legal realms and dimensions but continues through to society, culture, and human rights. The Voting Rights Act initially established in 1965 under Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration protected “racial minorities” from biased voting practices. It was a huge stride in the civil rights movement and a victory over harmful, archaic, and biased voting practices and traditions.

When the United States was still in its infancy, state versus national citizenship had no clear distinction due to the fact that noncitizen suffrage “was not controversial because voting rights were based on property and race, not citizenship” (Renshon 2008). Although it was without meaning, a precedent was set for which people were to vote in America’s elections: white men. Professor Leon E. Aylsworth (1931), a political science professor who assisted in the drafting of several laws in the Nebraska legislature stated in his article, “The Passing of Alien Suffrage” that:

It was sent to the Supreme Court because this becomes a controversy between citizen, state and the federal government. This case also has the capability to reach much farther beyond just this case. This case will

We are currently in the midst of a historical presidential election. People are rallying in mass numbers behind their presidential candidates, and come election time, they hope to have their candidate’s supporter’s turnout to vote. However, other forces such as voter ID laws may already be hindering their candidate chances by leading to a decrease in voter turnout rates. Thus, historically speaking, voter ID laws have been prevented and appealed because of a specific provision in the Voting Right Act of 1965. However, in 2013 the United States Supreme Court repealed Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. This specific provision laid out how any changes a states makes to their voting laws, must be accepted and passed by the federal government in

The event I chose was ‘The Right to Vote,’ which is based on the life of Josephine Summers. Josephine was also known as Joyce and was born in 1940, on Ukerebah Island – an island located in the middle of the Tweed River. During her teenage life and adulthood, Joyce, along with many other indigenous people, had grown up with discrimination. Unlike her grandmother, who wasn’t fully aboriginal and often referred to as a quadroon, Joyce didn’t have the right to vote and the same rule applied for anyone like her. In 1962, Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders were finally granted the right to enrol and vote at federal elections, as well as referendums. This was not compulsory. However, in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory,