Reviewing The Constitutionality Of The Voting Rights Act

Reviewing The Constitutionality Of The Voting Rights Act
Summarizing and Analyzing Justice 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. 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 at a time, during the 1950s where racial tensions stood
between whites and African Americans. "Continued relevance of poll tax (5 states) and literacy tests
(7 states) into 1950s." QUESTION FOR JAMES WHERE DO I GET THIS CONTEMPORARY
EVIDENCE? SINCE WE HAVE ACCESS TO LIMITED RESOURCES(Hendrickson, Lecture
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Argumentative Essay On The Voting Rights Act
It has been 52 years since the 1965 Voting Rights Act was put into action, less than a lifetime, and
yet it has been easy for the American population to look away from policy changes and
ramifications within the Act. Many people today, believe that everyone has the ability to vote if they
are a citizen 18 or over, but this has not been the case ever, even in today's "modern" society. Still,
there is a difference between voter restriction laws before 1965, and policies in 2017. It seems as
America advances into the future, these racist policies and laws have become more subtle,
gerrymandering and voter id policies have become the new literacy tests that prevent black and
marginalized voters from voting in recent elections. Another issue that has transpired recently is the
2013 Shelby County V. Holder, which has lifted government involvement within the Southern
States, giving them the power to change voting laws as they see fit.
One of the current arguments is if the Voting Right Act is relevant and necessary in society. Yes, it is
because racism still exists within the system. And yet, the act needs to be written in a way that
supports voter rights more than state rights, and local government rights. You can have voters
without a state, but what is a state without voters?
In order to fully understand the controversy of the Voting Rights Act, it is critical to know all of the
work that was done to get the Act off of the ground, and it is also imperative to know about the

Voting Rights Act Of 1965 Analysis
There were two aspects of the Voting Rights Act discussed in the presentation. The first was the
abolition of the literacy test. The literacy test was administered to a voter by a registrar. The registrar
had the voter read and explain any part of the state's constitution that he chose. If the results were
unsatisfactory, then they were not able to vote. This resulted in the registrars being impartial and
people who they did not like were guaranteed to fail. The second aspect of the Voting Rights Act of
1965 discussed was federal examiners. Federal examiners are government agents who are
dispatched from Washington D.C. to suspect jurisdictions. These Federal examiners will observe the
voting process in order to make sure everything is being

Felons And The Voting Rights Act
Felons are people who have been convicted of a felony. Felony is a crime, typically one involving
violence, regarded as more serious than a misdemeanor, and usually punishable by imprisonment for
more than one year or by death. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even
while they are incarcerated. Vermont's 1793 Constitution stipulates that residents can lose their right
to vote only if convicted of voter fraud. In Florida, Lowa and Virginia, felons and ex–felons
permanently lose their right to vote. Eleven states restrict voting even after a person has completed
their prison sentence and finished probation or parole. Twenty states require completion of parole
and probation before voting is allowed, and fourteen states allow felons to vote after they leave
prison. Florida and Texas each disenfranchise more than 600,000 people. In 1789, Kentucky became
the first U.S. state to ban convicted criminals from voting. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia
Sotomayor said that felon disenfranchisement is a violation of the Voting Rights Act in her May 4,
2006 dissenting opinion in Hayden v. Pataki. Ex–felons should be able to vote because they served
their time and now they are out. Hayden v. Pataki is a legal challenge to New York State 's law
disenfranchising individuals convicted of felonies while in prison and on parole. The initial pro se
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, by Joseph
Hayden on September 12,

Essay On The Voting Rights Act
"This act flows from a clear and simple wrong, its only purpose is to right that wrong. Millions of
Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color. This law will ensure them the right to
vote. The wrong is one which no American, in his heart, can justify. The right is one which no
American, true to our principles, can deny.... It is not just a question of guilt, although there is that.
It is that men cannot live with a lie and not be stained by it, "said the president (Equal Citizenship
and the Individual Right to Vote). The Voting Rights Act was "one of the most monumental laws in
the entire history of American freedom"–a law that, very exclusively, aimed to break down the legal
barriers at the state and local governments' level of authority that prohibited African Americans from
exercising their constitutional right to vote.
Even with the passage of the Voting Rights Acts of 1965, states have tried to manipulate the use of
gerrymandering to gain selective partisan gain. Gerrymandering is ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Cox, the court ruled that states could not longer deviate from strict equality when redrawing
congressional lines because it was usually done to help a political party gain partisan support.
Further, the court also stated that states cannot intentionally reduce the votes of some citizens on the
basis of race because it violates the fourteenth and fifteenth amendment of the Constitution. This
paved the way for the beginning of "majority–minority" districts. Under Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act, states must create legislative districts in which racial minorities have the means to elect
political candidates of their own preference. "Both matching slices and pack–and–crack assume that
voters have fixed political preferences that are unaffected by redistricting. Pack– and–crack assumes
that those preferences are dichotomous–everyone is either a Democrat or a Republican"
(Reconsidering Racial and Partisan

The Voting Rights Act Of 1965
From the beginning of racial divides in society, minorities, specifically Blacks, have been
discriminated against their voting rights. They have not only been unrepresented in the number of
candidates running for positions but also the number of voters who are registered and participate in
elections. After the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it was prohibited for voters to be racially
discriminated against. But since then, many revisions have been added, tightening the rules for
registering and participating in voting. Many of these rules prevent minorities from voting but aren't
considered racially discriminatory by the Supreme Court. These laws usually are created by
Republican politicians, right before a major election, and in result help decrease the number of votes
on the Democratic ballot, since most minorities vote Democratic. Although these laws don't really
change, some are challenged and removed by the Supreme Court on the argument that they prevent
certain races from being able to vote. Throughout history, Blacks and other minorities have been
targeted and prevented from participating in elections, hurting Democratic candidates through strict
voting laws created by Republicans.
After slavery was abolished, Blacks began to become actual citizens and gained humans rights that
Whites already had, including the right to vote. Since the Constitution, written in 1787, did not
protect Blacks' rights, amendments had to be added. The original Constitutions states in Article 1

Voting Rights Act Of 1965
The Voting Rights act of 1965 was established on August 6, 1965. This law was set to outlaw
discrimination of voting practices adopted in many Southern States after the civil war, including
literary test as a prerequisite to voting. The act was signed into law by former president Lyndon
Johnson after a century of deliberate and violent denial of the vote to African– Americans in the
South and latinos in the Southwest as well as many years of entrenched electoral systems that shut
out citizens with limited fluency in english. The voting Rights act of 1965 has traced back to the
14th and 15th Amendment where it grants citizenships to all persons born in the united states
including former slaves and provided all citizens with equal protection

The Amendment Of The Voting Rights Act
Thus, when faced with arbitrary legislative action or inaction, judicial intervention "is not only
appropriate but essential" to protect citizens' constitutional rights. Furthermore, when the Court
resolves constitutional questions that, for whatever reasons, elected representatives, cannot, its
rulings can guide lower courts, legislators, and citizens concerning the scope of individual rights and
permissibility of governmental conduct. When the Court applies the standing doctrine regardless of
legislative inertia or entrenchment, some citizens are left with rights but no remedies and a
government that is unaccountable and unresponsive to its citizens. This was precisely the point that
Justice Scalia made in Shelby County, and most likely why the Court refused to defer to Congress
despite overwhelming support for re–authorization of the Voting Rights Act. Noting that "they
[Senators] are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act," and suggesting that
the Act would be "reenacted in perpetuity unless ... unless a court can say it does not comport with
the Constitution," Justice Scalia recognized the necessity for judicial intervention in this situation.
The same principle should be applied when politically powerless citizens seek to challenge the
constitutionality of law and redress through the democratic process is nothing but an exercise in
futility. To deny such citizens standing where they assert a legally cognizable harm, are within the

Voting Rights Act Of 1965 Essay
Voting Rights Act of 1965 The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a legislation piece that prohibits
discriminating against races in voting, especially in Southern States. The Act meant to help break the
federal and state obstacles that violated the 15th amendment by prohibiting easy voting for African
Americans. The registration boards made the process a major hassle for blacks by means of such
discriminatory practices as literacy tests and poll taxes. Not to mention that when Southern blacks
tried to vote or register, they could be impoverished, intimidated, or even physically assaulted. So,
whether nationally or locally, African Americans were almost, if not, completely politically
powerless. As a part of the Civil Rights Movement on January 6, 1965, Martin Luther King
launched a Southern Christian ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Act made a big change. For example, in 1960 in Mississippi, only five percent of eligible blacks
voted. The Act allowed more blacks to vote, 25000 African Americans registered in 1965 and this
number has been increasing over 50% in 1967. By 1965, collected efforts to end voter
discrimination in Southern states had been going on for a while. In Philadelphia, Mississippi,
voting–rights activists were killed, which, along with several other violent acts, put the nation's
voting rights problem on the spotlight. The Act has 8 sections, section 1 is for the title, section 2 is
for congressional purpose and findings, section 3 is for judicial authorization, section 4 is about
federal provision, section 5 is about the supreme court, section 6 is for the fees, section 7 is for
extension of Bilingual Election Requirements, and section 8 is about survey census data. Five
amendments were added to this act, in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992 and

Voting Rights Act Of 1965 Research Paper
Lets describe what Voting Rights Act of 1965 is; in the "The American Heritage New Dictionary of
Cultural Literacy, Third Edition", it says that by word for word that its a law passed at the time of
the civil rights movement. It eliminated various devices, such as literacy tests, that had traditionally
been used to restrict voting by black people. It authorized the enrollment of voters by federal
registrars in states where fewer than fifty percent of the eligible voters were registered or voted. All
such states were in the South. The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third
Edition Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin
Company. All rights reserved. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/voting–rights–act–of–
1965/American Psychological Association (APA):voting rights act of 1965. ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Retrieved December
14, 2016 from Dictionary.com website http://www.dictionary.com/browse/voting–rights–act–of–
1965Chicago Manual Style (CMS):voting rights act of 1965. Dictionary.com. The American
Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/voting–rights–act–of–1965 (accessed: December 14,
2016).Modern Language Association (MLA):"voting rights act of 1965". The American Heritage®
New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 14 Dec.
2016. .Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE):Dictionary.com "voting rights act of
1965," in The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Source
location: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/voting–rights–act–
of–1965. Available: http://www.dictionary.com/. Accessed: December 14,

Voting Rights Act of 1965 Essay
The history of "gerrymandering" started during the term of Elbridge Gerry, the Governor of
Massachusetts, when he approved an obscure redistricting plan ahead of the 1812 elections that
helped Republicans hold on to power in the legislature. One of the redistricted districts that
primarily consisted of a one party defendant was shaped as a salamander, which later gave rise to
this political term (Keck, 2010). The term relates to the drawing of the boundaries of electoral
districts in a way that gives one party an unfair advantage over its rivals, which gives rise to the
disproportionate representation of Democratic and Republican parties (Encyclopedia Britannica,
2013). Historically, both parties have used this form of redistricting to ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The Supreme Court reversed the ruling and held that bipartisan gerrymanders are constitutionally
acceptable.
In Davis v. Bandemer (1986), the Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering violated the
Equal Protection Clause, but the court couldn't agree on the appropriate constitutional standard
against which legality claims of partisan gerrymandering should and should not be evaluated. Justice
White said that partisan gerrymandering occurred when a redistricting was enacted with the both the
intent and the effect of discriminating against an identifiable political group. Justices Powell and
Stevens said that partisan gerrymandering should be based on multiple factors, such as electoral
district shape, adherence to local government boundaries. Justices O'Connor, Burger, and Rehnquist
disagreed and held that such claims should be dismissed (Issacharoff, Karlan, & Pildes, pp. 777–
779).
Gerrymandering is often compared to redistricting which is supposed to achieve equality in districts'
voting power, so called "one person, one vote" requirement. In the U.S. redistricting happens every
10 years to account for changes in population, so "the votes will be worth the same amount" (The
James Irvine Foundation ). Gerrymandering is based on the wasting or weakening of votes of what
is usually the minority

Many people may have heard the phrase, "if you do the crime, you have to do the crime". What if
the criminal actually does the time? Does that mean that the punishment is over? Is their debt to
society paid? Some convicted felons may not feel this way when faced with criminal
disenfranchisement. As it stands right now most states have restrictions on felons and voting.
Florida, for example, requires you to wait 5 years before a convicted felon can apply for clemency
to vote (ProCon.org). Out of all the states, there are only 2 states that have no restrictions, and allow
convicted felons to vote absentee ballots from within prison (ProCon.org). Compared to other
modern societies, the United States "features the harshest restrictions on offender voting rights"
(Sigler). Convicted felons should be able to vote as soon as possible to help reinforce integration
back into society. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 extended the rights of all eligible citizens to vote.
But America has a long history of disenfranchisement. Woman were not allowed to vote until 1920,
when the Constitution was amended to state "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall
not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex" ("The 19th
Amendment"). In 1870, African American men were granted the right to vote in The 15th
Amendment which stated, the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any state

1965 Voting Rights Act
I think there were many events that helped the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act to pass some I
would not characterize as fortunate.
I would point out that Television was now in people's homes, news came more instantaneous than
before, the death of a young black man named Jimmie Lee Jackson's, and Bloody Sunday.
The first event that leads us to Selma is the encounter with Sheriff Jim Clark who on the town hall
steps stops blacks from entering the building thus not allowing them to register to vote. This event
leads the Sheriff to club a black man on the steps of city hall making him fall down and what
appears to be him now unconscious on the ground. This was all filmed by a news organization.
"A few nights later, Reverend Vivian was asked ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
And so there was a debate in King's circle. Should they go forward they might encounter again what
had been encountered in Marion. And King's advisors were divided. Some said, "Yes, let's go
forward." King himself was uncertain (May)".
Here we see the irony of men's decisions the decision to march by King his uncertain feelings about
the march and that of Johnson also not wanting the event to take place. This is why I believe the
Selma march was a major change for the civil rights movement as a whole. It galvanized most
American of the plight of the African American in the south. This also gave government official
some courage to vote for this type of legislation.
The march its self was peaceful on the side of those marching however the police where by no
means peaceful or respectful of the marches. Again here television power is seen the new crews
managed to record the event as it unfolds and get it back to New York were its broadcasted and now
the whole nation see's firsthand what the blacks are up

The Voting Rights Act And Nationality Amendment Act Of 1965
The Impacts of the Voting Rights Act and Nationality Amendment Act of 1965
The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s influenced the federal government to introduce new laws
to better the country for Blacks and other minorities. The two major acts that passed were the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 and the Nationality Amendments Act of 1965. President John F. Kennedy and
Lyndon B. Johnson helped ignite the fire for change in the United States (Shaw et. al. 2015: 207).
My thesis is that the passings of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Nationality Amendments Act
of 1965 successfully did overcome big problems with discrimination, but there is space to grow
since some of the key provisions needed to be revise.
First, The Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed when President John F. Kennedy was in office. The key
provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were to handle the voter discrimination and make voting
rights more fair and restrictive. Before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, there were many obstacles to
prevent blacks and other minorities from voting. In the era of the Jim Crow laws, many states
created poll taxes and literacy tests for blacks to take before registering to vote (Menand. 2013: 4).
These literacy tests were ridiculously hard for blacks due to the fact that some were illiterate. Even
blacks who attended college could barely pass the literacy tests. For example, it could be "recite the
entire constitution." Some of the reasons why white people did not want blacks to

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 Essays
Most change can be caused by people or something with significant value. Occasionally people
forget that change can also be caused by pieces of paper. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a law
passed that primarily gave African Americans the right to vote without having to take any sort of
literacy tests. African Americans were widely ignored in voting rights because they were forced to
take literacy tests to be eligible to vote. Having this event in our nation's civil rights movement was
a landmark that allowed the other half of our nation's voice to be heard. "The Voting Rights Act
itself has been called the single most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever passed by
Congress."(Laney 65)
Before this act was passed there ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The extension of the franchise to black citizens was strongly resisted. Among others, the Ku Klux
Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, and other terrorist organizations attempted to prevent the
15th Amendment from being enforced by violence and intimidation.
Once whites regained control of the state by a process known as "Redemption," they used
gerrymandering of election districts to further reduce black voting strength and minimize the
number of black elected officials. In the 1890s, these states began to amend their constitutions and
to ratify a series of laws intended to re–establish and establish white political supremacy. "Such
disfranchising laws included poll taxes, literacy tests, vouchers of "good character," and
disqualification for "crimes of moral turpitude." These laws were "color–blind" on their face, but
were designed to exclude black citizens disproportionately by allowing white election officials to
apply the procedures Karim 3 selectively." (Laney 11) Other laws and practices, such as the white
primary, attempted to evade the 15th Amendment by allowing private political parties to conduct
elections and establish qualifications for their members. As a result of these efforts, in the former
Confederate states nearly all black citizens were disenfranchised and removed by 1910. The process
of restoring the rights stolen by these tactics would take many decades.
There were several tactics used to steal voting rights away from

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a law passed at the time of the Civil Rights Movement. The law
eliminated various devices, such as literacy tests, that were used to restrict African Americans from
voting. Before the law, many African Americans were deprived from their political powers in many
ways. As we approach the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act it is
important to know how the right to vote was won by civil rights activists who participated in non
violent form of resistance to achieve change. The case, Gomillion V. Lightfoot of 1960, the Alabama
legislature tried to ban African Americans from voting. The way they did this was they redrew the
electoral district boundaries of Tuskegee, to exclude all African Americans from city limits and
place them in a different district. Their ultimate goal was to deprive African Americans of political
power. The Court found the Alabama legislature violating the Fifteenth Amendment and found
guilty with one idea in mind and that was to deprive African Americans from political power.This
helped the Civil rights movement closer to their voting rights ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In the case of Brown V. Board of 1954, it was the end of segregation in schools for African
Americans. In this case, the board of educated wanted to segregate African American children from
white children in schools. The board of education did not succeed because of the equal protection of
the laws guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Perhaps, without Brown V. Board, there still may have
had segregation in public schools today. Ten years later, the Civil Rights Act was passed which gave
discriminated races equal voter registration requirements and ended segregation in schools.
Education and voting definitely connect together when it comes down to the Civil Rights Activists
securing their fundamental rights. It shows the government that human beings have rights that you
cannot take

President Lyndon B Johnson : The Voting Rights Act Of 1965
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed into law by President Lyndon B Johnson, this was to
overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented Africans–Americans from voting
under the fifteenth amendment. The VRA gave African–Americans the right to vote and stating that
people are not allowed to do anything to the people of different color or race while they are trying to
vote, or forcing them to not vote. The fifteenth amendment was to prohibit states from denying a
male citizen the right to vote based on race, or color; Still people who do not agree with this were
trying to prevent African–Americans from voting. One peaceful day of a voting rights march turned
into a day of outrage from white people, on March 7th, 1965 Alabama State Troopers attacking the
African–Americans with nightsticks, tear gas, and whips after refusing to turn back. Many African–
Americans were severely beaten or injured and many ran for their lives. This incident was captured
on national television and many citizens disagreed what happened. After the whole incident
happened President Johnson called for a comprehensive voting rights legislation. In a speech to
congress on March 15th, 1965, President Johnson stated the many ways election officials were
denying African–Americans citizens to vote; also telling congress in mainly southern states they
would make the African–Americans recite the Constitution or explain the most complex provisions
or state laws. The Voting Rights bill

Essay On The Voting Rights Act Of 1965
The voting rights act of 1965 was designed to prohibit discrimination based on race, and requires
certain jurisdictions to prove bilingual assistance to language minority voters. The act banned the
use of literacy tests, provided for federal oversight of voter registration in areas where less than 50
percent of the nonwhite population had not registered to vote. Still voting rights gave African
American voters the legal means to challenge voting restrictions and vastly improved voter turnout.
In Mississippi alone, voter turnout among blacks increased from 6 percent in 1964 to 59 percent in
1969. When the law was first passed, they made the blacks take a test to be able to vote.
(history.com). Since 1965 the voting rights act has protected ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
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

Essay on Relevancy of the Voting Rights Act in Modern Times
Ratified in 1868, the fourteenth amendment guarantees equal protection of all persons under the law.
In the 1960's though, African Americans were still being discriminated against because of the color
of their skin. After the broadcast of 600 peaceful African Americans being attacked and beaten after
attempting to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, President Lynden Johnson
decided it was time to create some legislation to prevent incidences such as this from happening in
the future. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have been hailed as some
of "the most far–reaching bills on civil rights in modern times" (Schmidt et. al. 2010, 98). At that
time in history, they were exactly what the country ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
One turning point in the campaign was when African–American students gathered in Kelly Ingram
Park to walk across the park. Hoses and dogs were let loose on the crowd, and the media captured it.
After the pictures and news stories were published, many people's opinions on the campaign
swayed. The second event that prompted Kennedy to move forward with the civil rights act was
George Wallace's refusal to integrate the University of Alabama. Then Governor of Alabama, he
stood outside the University, refusing to let two African–American students inside until the National
Guard was sent in. Feeling as though something needed to be done, Kennedy stepped in. The day
the Senate passed the Civil Rights Act bill, it was on the front page of the New York Times. The bill
had been passed by a vote 73 to 27, with 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans voting for it, and 21
Democrats and 6 Republicans voting against it. Although it had not yet passed the House, the
chairman and ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee said that they would
accept the Senate version of the bill which "With the support of these two men, who were
responsible for the House bill, acceptance of the Senate bill in the House is assured" (Kenworthy).
The bill did pass the house, and Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill into law on July 2, 1964. This bill
forbade discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. Some of its
provisions are outlawing

Argument In Failure Of The Voting Rights Act Of 1965
Throughout America's history the franchise has been withheld from different groups. This has been
possible due to weakly written laws that do not provide adequate protections. In 1965 PL 89–110
was passed, this law, commonly known as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, finally provided real
protections for minorities living in southern states. In recent years the language of the law was
modified within the Supreme Court to take away the law's primary power. In the following mock
Congressional testimony we will go back to 1848, 13 years before the American Civil War, and
provide evidence of why a law like PL 89–110 is necessary and commendable.
Honorable Senators and Representatives, today I would like to provide you with a compelling
argument in favor of expansive voting rights for all in our Country. To begin I would like for us to
turn toward our past. In the Declaration of Independence the framers of our great republic wanted to
break free from ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
That is why today we must make a change. In fact, instead of moving beyond subjugation, fierce
battles and compromise led to three–fifths compromise which codified viewing Black's as
subhuman. Next, it failed to give our Black friends, even those that have been freed from slavery,
the right of equal suffrage. To achieve this right and put an end to our hypocrisy, we must act now.
The idea of an equal rights amendment to the Constitution does not go far enough toward achieving
this universal suffrage (Buescher). This is because the current Constitution gives states the full
ability to hold their own elections and therefore impose their own rules. Specifically, Section IV,
Clause I of the Constitution explicitly gives states this power. So in the states with clear racially
motivated power structures and oppression due to slavery, even if equal rights are granted it is likely
the state will ignore the Constitutional Amendment because of their power to control

The Supreme Court of the United States has produced many infamous cases in its existence as a part
of the three branches of government. It has seen many cases pertaining in particular to the Voting
Rights Act initially enacted in 1965. There are two sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that are
of particular concern in most cases, sections 4 and 5. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires
certain states, districts, and localities to obtain federal preclearance before making any changes or
alterations to their election laws or practices (Overby). Section 4 specifies a formula for determining
whether a geographical area is subject to section 5 (Overby). When the Voting Rights Act was
enacted in 1965 it was originally restricted to five years. However, since then there have been
multiple extensions. Congress extended it for the first time in 1970 for another five years, followed
by another extension in 1975 for seven more years, and for another twenty–five years in 1982 (The
Oyez Project). When the twenty–five year reauthorization came to expire in 2006, Congress yet
again extended the 1965 Voting Rights Act for another twenty–five years (The Oyez Project). Since
its passing and continuous reauthorizations, there have been many attempts to declare the Voting
Rights Act, specifically sections 4 and 5 unconstitutional. A distinct case that warrants a closer look
is the case of Shelby County v. Holder. Shelby County v. Holder reached the Supreme Court in 2013
and is the

Voting Rights Act Pros And Cons
I have come to a realization that the United States of America has taken a huge step back into
history. Instead of learning from our past and growing we have elected a President that only brings
racist remarks symbolizing everything that the United States does not identify as. Due to the election
it has brought us much awareness of how ignorant the people who were elected into office to be the
people's voice. We have accomplished many things as a society, but still render the key elements to
take the blindfold of the ignorance that hovers around people. The Voting Rights act has been
dismantled and sadly, we are returning to our racists background, or maybe we just never
acknowledged them until we elected a blatant racist president. The Voting Right's act represents a
huge faze in our History of how we transformed into a more welcoming society for all people no ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
As everyone may know The Daily Show is a widely popular show that informs viewers of current
news through humour (John,2017). The Daily show had an episode dedicated to why Shelby county
wanted to get rid of sec 4(b) and 5 of the voting rights act (John,2017). Supposedly Voting I.D laws
was a suggestion to prevent voting fraud which was assessed to having 1 to 2 cases not 1,000 to
2,000 but simply 1 to 2 cases (John,2017). It's a non–ethical approach because there have only been
1 to 2 cases of fraud which does not call for an extreme tactic of presenting I.D laws (John,2017).
The Daily show dived into how the voting I.D laws was a strategic ideal to incorporate all these
restrictions to stop the Democratic party (John,2017). By going after black & Latino they would
overall halt the Democratic party because they mainly vote democrat (John,2017). Thankfully the
voting ID laws were shut down in Alabama, but has started an uproar in the south

The Causes Of The Voting Rights Act?
The constitution laid the groundwork for America's citizens giving essential rights to everyone. That
would have been the ideal America; Humans are flawed and there of course has to be some form of
disagreement. Throughout America's existence there have been arguments, public unrest, deadly
altercations and disagreements when it comes to people's rights. An instance of this can be shown
through Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s campaign. He dreamed of abolishing the mentality of the south
not allowing blacks to vote. Dr. King also wanted to unite people not matter their skin color. Dr.
King was another activist who contributed to the Civil Rights Act being passed. Due to Dr. King's
acts the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was established to overcome legal barriers at the state and local
levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote under the 15th
Amendment (1870) to the Constitution of the United States.
Thus preventing more tragedies like the one that happened between the black people of Selma,
Alabama, Alabama Police and State Troopers. Dr. King's group attempted to march on the capitol
but were stopped by Law Enforcement. State Troopers and Local Law Enforcement used clubs and
tear gas in order to get the large group to disperse. The State Troopers and Local Law Enforcement
beat the people in the march from Selma to Montgomery severely to deter them from trying again.
This was an unconstitutional, and inhumane act condoned by the Governor of Alabama at

Selma, Alabama And The Voting Rights Act Of 1965
This essay will discuss the connection between the protest movement in Selma, Alabama and the
passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In addition, it will cover the roles in which the Alabama
law officials, the national media attention, and the demonstrators from out of state played in the
passage of the Voting Rights Act. The 1965 Selma protest led to passage of the 1965 Voting Rights
Act. However, there were three protest marches that attributed to the civil rights movement during
this time. It was a 54 mile march from Selma to Montgomery, which took place from March 7–21,
1965. The protest movement in Selma was launched by local African–Americans, who formed the
DCVL. It was later joined by organizers from the SNCC, they began

The Constitution gave each state the right to determine its own voting laws (May 50). This privilege
has been amended to ensure that minorities, and other groups who would be otherwise left out of the
voting process, are not prevented from voting in federal and state elections. The most prominent
piece of legislation ensuring equal treatment of all citizens at the voting booth is the Voting Rights
Act of 1965. Amended many times since its initial adoption, the Act is generally considered the most
successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United States Congress, but the
relevance of this bill written more than 50 years ago has come into question in recent years
(Introduction to Federal Voting Rights Laws). With the 2013 Supreme Court decision of Shelby
County, Alabama v. Holder, the ability to decide what restrictions should be put on voters has
returned to the states themselves (Shelby County v. Holder). State legislatures have since been
extremely active in changing their voting processes. There are many conflicting opinions on the
amount of control states should have over voting accessibility, as several states have enacted
beneficial changes for voters, like online registration. Other states, however, have enacted stricter
provisions, like voter ID laws, to their voting processes in order to counter voter fraud or help to
shrink budgets. Opponents of these laws site their effects as limiting the right to vote, especially
among low–income and

Voting has been a fundamental right, and has changed over the past one hundred years to allow not
only women but minorities to vote. However, in Texas there have been arguments about the revision
of Section five of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Not only has Texas politicians accepted the new
Voting Rights act, but the legislation itself has also been accused of redistricting parts of the state to
aid voter turn out to the party in power. With the ever growing minority population, legislative
action is to keep the slant conservative rather than liberal, and to do this they have adopted what is
called gerrymandering. To better understand the revision of this act, citizens must first understand
what the Voting Rights Act did, and why it was changed by Congress. As the people, we must ask if
this change is truly beneficial, especially in the state in which we reside in.
The first section to the fifteenth amendment clearly states, "The right of citizens of the United States
to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on the account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude."1 The fifteenth Amendment was passed in 1870, after the
Civil War and during reconstruction. Congress wanted to act before the Radical Republicans, and
White Supremacists could when it came to the voting rights of the once enslaved African
Americans. In Mississippi, a state largely affected by the emancipation of slaves, African Americans
had made up for more than

Effects Of The Voting Rights Act Of 1965
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, its goal was
to break down the legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from
exercising their right to vote as it's supposed to be guaranteed under the 15th Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution. This law helped to disperse and reduce systematic discrimination that would
ultimately limit and prohibit African Americans from voting. An example of this being the literacy
tests. African Americans trying to vote would often get turned away by pollers saying that they got
the date, time etc. wrong or filled the application out incorrectly or give them the most difficult of
tasks like reciting the entire constitution all to show their

The Voting Rights Act 42
SUMMARY 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.
In 1973 Congress amended the Voting Rights Act and extended protections to members of
"languages minorities." The new language minorities' classification meant that the act's protection
now extended to voters non–English speaking minorities. These classifications included those who
spoke Spanish, Native American languages, Native Alaskan languages, and Asian languages. Some
of the changes to the new amendment within the Voting Rights Act prohibited literacy tests as a
requirement for voter registration. It also required jurisdictions with large minority language
speaking populations to have non–English speaking ballots as well as oral voting instructions that
conformed to the language minorities within their districts. Additionally, the new amendments to the
Voting Rights Act also protected minorities from voter dilution (the nullification of minority group
votes through a

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
In 1965, at a time of racial discrimination in America and the emergence of a strong Civil Rights
Movement, congress enacted the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits discrimination in
voting. Congress could not end racial discrimination in voting by suing one jurisdiction, state, etc. at
a time. Rather, Congress passed Section 5 of the VRA, which required states and local governments
with a history of racially discriminating voting practices to get the approval of the U.S. Attorney
General or a three–judge panel for the U.S. District Court for D.C. ("preclearace") in order to make
any changes to their voting practices. Section 4(b) said that the preclearance requirement applied to
states and political subdivisions that used a "test or ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The defendant argued that Congress found substantial evidence of racial discrimination in voting in
the jurisdictions that are covered and that even if voting dilution does not violate the 15th
Amendment, it does violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and therefore
Congress can protect against vote dilution. Next, the plaintiff argued that the ruling in the D.C.
Circuit, which would allow Congress to determine for itself the constitutional significance of the
evidence, threatened to remove the limitation that Congress may enforce but not interpret the 14th
and 15th Amendments and that the D.C. Circuit used to absence of discrimination to prove that the
preclearance requirement is effective and still necessary. On this issue, the defendant argued that
Congress correctly determined that Section 5 continues to ward off discrimination in voting that
would violate the Constitution. Third, the plaintiff argued that even if preclearance is justified, the
coverage formula is not rational since it is based on decades old data and also because the factors
that are considered are "first generation" ballot access issues, while the Voting Rights Act is meant
to defeat "second–generation problems" such as vote dilution. The defendant argued that Congress
determined which jurisdictions should be covered and then engineered a formula that would cover
those specific jurisdictions, so the formula is still relevant because it specifies the areas which
Congress

The Supreme Court rulings led to a number of acts which helped the civil rights movement attain its
goals. The first example is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. On January 23rd, 1964, the 24th
amendment stopped the poll tax, which initially had been introduced in eleven southern states after
reconstruction to make it difficult for poor blacks to vote. On August 10th, 1965, Congress passed
the Voting Rights Act, making it easier for Southern blacks to register to vote. Anything that could
limit the number of people able to vote, for example – some states had used a literacy test, limited
access to education, added poll taxes, and other such requirements that were used to restrict black
voting – were all made illegal. The Act proclaimed that 'No person, whether acting under colour of
law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce
any person for voting or attempting to vote.' Although the Supreme Court was not directly involved,
it can be suggested that it aided the rights movement by its early recognition for equality, leading to
other intuitions to follow which eventually led to blacks having a say in how the country is ran. The
second example of this was the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968. On July 2nd, President Johnson
signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which specified that 'all persons shall be entitled to be free, at
any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of

The Voting Rights Act
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. The decision made by the Supreme Court was unjust. On the contrary to
the Court's decision, the Voting Rights Act is still extremely important and is needed even wider
today, the 21st century, to realize the promises of equality in the U.S. Declaration of Independence
and Constitution. The Act played a very important role in increasing black voter rates and against
voting dilutions during its service. As discrimination is still a common ideology today and still has
impact on legislation, without

Voting Rights Act Of 1965 Analysis
The article by Kenneth T. Walsh discusses about the idea that was presented in 1965 when President
Johnson signed a law intending to right a wrong. The wrong that Johnson wanted gone was made
through the signing of the Voting Rights Act which allowed millions of Americans of color to be
able to vote. Johnson gracefully stated, "This law will ensure them the right to vote. The wrong is
one which no American, in his heart, can justify. The right is one which no American, true to our
principles, can deny.... It is not just a question of guilt, although there is that. It is that men cannot
live with a lie and not be stained by it (Lyndon B. Johnson)." The thing is though two years ago the
Supreme Court in a 5–4 decision struck down congress attempting ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
I understand that in an ideal situation voting should be easily accessible for all and the while still is
difficult to have people commit fraud. But you just can't have it both ways realistically and if you
can have it both ways it still hasn't been presented yet, maybe in the near future sure but as it is at
the moment that's the dilemma. Like how Walsh said, "It's all about political power–who has it, who
wants it, who gets it (Kenneth T. Walsh)." It rings true on so many levels it truly all does come down
to those three simple things it seems as though that's what every politician is striving to achieve their
end goal of

Voting Rights Act Pros And Cons
Before it was Section 5 of the Voting act was rendered inapplicable in the court case Shelby County
v. Holder, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required states that have had historically had
discriminatory voting policies to get preclearance from the Attorney General or the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia before enforcing any new voting laws or drawing new
districts. In the Supreme Courte Case Perez v. Perry (2012), the court came to a pre curiam decision,
that Texas had not violated the Section 2 of the Voting rights act of 1965 which prohibits voting
practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or language. The court stated
that "because it was unclear whether the District Court for the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In 2010 the Texas population grew by about 4.3 million people. Latinos accounted for 65 percent of
the increase, blacks 13.4 percent and Asian–Americans 10.1 percent (Barnes). According to Texas
Department of State Health Services, data taken from The Census Bureau in 2010 showed that the
out of the 25,145,561 people in Texas the Black Population was 3,003,149 (11.94%) and the
Hispanic Population was 9,460,921 (37.62%) meaning that 49.56% of Texas was comprised of
Black and Hispanic minority groups. Census data taken from the 2012 national election showed that
minority groups favored the Democratic Party and that has been historically so for many years with
only a few shifts to the Republican Party. However, in Texas Democrats make up 11 of the 38 seats
in Congress, including both the Senate and House of Representatives. Ironically though, 28.94% of
the Congressmen from Texas are democratic whereas 49.56% of the population of Texas is
comprised of minority groups that traditionally vote democratic. This discrepancy between the
Texas population and the Texas congressional population goes to show that gerrymandering in order
to favor white majority groups who typically vote republican did indeed occur in the 2012 election
following the 2010 Census which is a violation of Article 2 of the Voting Rights

Voting Rights Act Of 1965
States have utilized their discretion over the time, place, and manner to alienate large segments of
the voting population in the pass. From the Jim Crow era literacy tests and poll taxes, to modern–
day voter ID laws, representatives have attempted to disenfranchise voters at every turn. Thought
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would have ideally rid America of these obstacles by this point,
vestiges of the manipulation remain. The passage of years has brought a large degree of uniformity
to election laws. For example, all states except Louisiana permit election by plurality in general
elections. But several key distinctions prevail, and the desire for federalism here has created issues
with suffrage. Voter ID laws are perhaps the most visible ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Now, congressional districts follow no reasonable pattern or logic; districts within states vary
drastically in terms of size, shape, and similarity of socio–economic diversity. Parties controlling
state legislatures have the most say in the mapping of Congressional districts, and consequently try
to draw districts up in ways that insulate incumbents. They "draw district lines to maximize the
number of seats they can win," usually by concentrating opposition voters into the same districts.
This leads to a guaranteed loss in those districts, but allows the ruling party to win the vast majority
of other districts by tight, but secure margins. The wider the margin of victory at the national level,
the more dangerous gerrymandering becomes to Congressional districts. This was true of the
elections of 1974 (Democrats picked up 49 House seats and 4 in the Senate in the wake of
Watergate), 1994 (When Republicans gained 54 House and 10 Senate seats during the "Gingrich
Revolution"), and 2006 (When Democrats won 31 House and six Senate seats). For example, in
2010, Republicans scored a sweeping victory in the House. They ended up controlling redistricting
procedures for eighteen states, compared to Democrats' six. Republicans then "exploited this
opportunity to shore up some of their marginal districts" by adding in favorable voters to weakening
districts. The effects shine clearly: in 2012, only

In 2013, the Supreme Court decided to gut the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Shelby County v.
Holder by deciding Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. The Voting Rights Act
was meant to prevent historically discriminatory states from passing discriminatory voting laws. The
purpose was to end racial discrimination in voting. Section 4(b) lays out the formula for which these
states are selected. Basically, if the state had a history of restricting votes through tests or other
means, their voting laws would be subject to review. The constitutionality of this section, as well as
Section 5, was brought into question in Shelby County v. Holder. The Supreme Court was essential
in settling this dispute because it is the only branch with the power of judicial review. If the
legislative or executive branch do something and it is questionable as to whether the action is
constitutional or not, the Supreme Court has the final say. Because the Voting Rights Act's
constitutionality was questioned, it was up to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not it was.
The majority opinion stated that Section 5 is constitutional, but that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional.
They argued that it is unconstitutional because times have changed since 1965 when the Voting
Rights Act was enacted, and because it does not treat all states equally. This decision form the Court
was the wrong decision and both of these claims from the majority opinion are easily refuted. First
of all, as the

Impact Of The Voting Rights Act Of 1965
The most transformative piece of legislation relating to a minority culture group in America is the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, also known as the VRA. This piece of legislation has nearly 150 years of
history to prove that its affect on minorities, mainly African Americans, has had a major impact on
American civil rights and is still in the spotlight today. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was signed
into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on August 6, 1965, and was designed to overcome legal
barriers at both the state and local levels of government that prevented African Americans from
exercising their right to vote. ("Voting Rights Act of 1965") The 15th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution ratified on February 3, 1870 granted African American men the right to vote declaring
that the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United
States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." (Primary
Documents...) Sadly, the promise of the 15th Amendment was not realized for nearly a century
because of government use of poll taxes, literacy tests and other means used by the Southern states
to disenfranchise African Americans. The passing of the VRA helped completely change history
giving African American citizens a voice. Beginning with the passing of the 15th Amendment in
1869, minority voting rights has had a lengthy history in America. In 1896, Louisiana "grandfather
clauses" kept former slaves and

Despite what many might think, the voting rights act of 1965 is well known across hundreds of
nations all over the world. The voting rights act of 1965 has been around for several centuries and
has a very important meaning in the lives of many. This act was signed into law by President
Lyndon Johnson on August 6, 1965. He aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels
that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote under the 15th amendment to
the Constitution of the United States. It is a landmark piece of federal legislation that prohibits this
racial discrimination. This document is just as big and important as the Constitution and the
Declaration of Independence. It would be safe to assume that voting rights act of 1965 is going to be
around for a long time and will have an enormous impact on the lives of many people in times to
come. The voting acts of 1965 created positive and negative changes for America. But, why was this
law created, when was it put into effect, and what effect did it have on the U.S.? Why was the voting
rights act of 1965 created? The voting rights act was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson
on August 6, 1965. He aimed to overcome any legal barriers at the state and local levels that
prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote under the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Soon after passage of the Voting Rights Act, federal examiners were conducting voter registration,
and black voter registration began a sharp increase. The cumulative effect of the Supreme Court's
decisions, Congress' enactment of voting rights legislation, and the ongoing efforts of concerned
private citizens and the Department of Justice, has been to restore the right to vote guaranteed by the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The Voting Rights Act itself has been called the single most
effective piece of civil rights legislation ever passed by

The United States is a country anchored on the principle of inclusivity and mutual respect. The
country has a dark past characterized with instances of racial profiling and discrimination which
culminated into civil unrests realized in the mid–20th century. Moving forward, the country adopted
strategic frameworks that were to guide towards a new era devoid of discrimination. The aspect of
political participation was one fundamental instrument that was subsequently integrated into the
American social dynamics. The enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 sought to empower the
minority groups to participate in the electoral processes, and to eliminate the barriers that existed in
the political landscape. Some of the achievements of the act ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Section 5 highlights that any changes in the state electoral laws, which are deemed to have the
potential to disenfranchise the minority groups must first be approved by the federal agencies
including the US attorney general and the US District Court for D.C. In addition, the section defines
the need for the states with a significant population of minority groups to develop bilingual ballot
papers to ensure that the voters make informed decisions when taking part in the electoral process.
On the other hand, section 4 of the act highlights the need to adopt special coverage formulas to
integrate the minority groups in the entire electoral process. In many instances, the act requires that
such special coverage formulas to be cleared by the federal agencies before they can be applied. The
fundamental goal of the preclearance provision is to prevent discrimination against certain groups of
voters who may be deemed to antagonize the general position of their local political trends.
However, this provision has since been deemed unconstitutional in the Shelby County v. Holder
Case of 2013 (Fuller, 2014). Despite the perceived unconstitutionality of the two sections of the act,
and the attempts to review the act to eliminate the clauses, analyses of the political dynamics
indicate that the two sections are still relevant in American politics.
Justifications for the Need for Sections 4 and 5
The first factor which makes the sections necessary is that they

Voting The Voting Rights Act
To Begin, Party in the electorate, or PIE, refers to the eligible voting population. The composition of
the party in the electorate can help and hurt the candidates running for office, as the electorate can
vote candidates either in or out of office. Over the course of American government, the most recent
changes and influences to the electorate include the passage of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the
recent Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder. For example, the video Fight for the
Right to Vote, features one experts explaining that prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act,
around half of the eligible voters were unable to vote, thanks to the systematic repression
(CITATION). Poll taxes, literacy tests, and inaccurate information regarding locations and dates
include a few of the methods that powerful whites used to prevent poor minority voters from voting.
The passage of the Voting Rights Act allowed the entire eligible portion of the population to vote,
and thanks to federal government, was effective; state and local governments needed approval from
the Federal Government before changing voting requirements. The Voting Rights Act also provided
the Federal Government with the power to oversee the voting registration where more than 50% of
the nonwhite population was eligible to vote, and allowed the U.S. Attorney General to investigate
the usage of poll taxes at the state and local government level (CITATION). The Voting Rights Act
had an enormous

Reviewing The Constitutionality Of The Voting Rights Act

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Dotha Keller

More from Dotha Keller (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Reviewing The Constitutionality Of The Voting Rights Act