The Supreme Court’s decision has raised many concerns. While some individuals see this ruling as America taking another step in the right direction, in order to build a stronger more united nation that’s no longer haunted by the dark past of slavery. Others fear that this ruling will continue to perpetuate voting discrimination in states where discrimination was and is still very common. In Justice Ginsburg dissent to the court’s majority ruling she states that “everyone can agree that race-based voting discrimination still persists2”. Yet, despite this mutual understanding of race issues in America the section 4 coverage of the Voters Rights Act was still stroke down. A decision that many activists, leaders and government officials disagree
Nearly 100 years after the 15th amendment was ratified, vast disparities and blatant discrimination in voting process and practice were still pervasive, particularly in certain southern states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) was enacted by congress to address this enduring inequity. Section 5 of the VRA requires that states meeting criteria set out in section 4(b) of the act, must obtain federal “preclearance” before enacting any laws that affect voting. Section 4(b) provides the conditions for the preclearance requirement as state or jurisdictions where less than 50% of minorities were registered to vote in 1964.
Shelby County v. Holder is a hugely important in the United States Supreme Court case related to the (whether or not something agrees with the Constitution) of to legal rules of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which demands certain states and local governments to get federal preclearance before putting into use of any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4,which contains the coverage formula that decides which legal controls are subjected to preclearance based on their histories of(unfair treatment based on skin color, age, etc.) in voting.I disagree with the decision because The big pattern of (unfair treatment based on skin color, age, etc.) that led the Court to before that judge as corrected in Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Holder, Justice Roberts argued that the constraints, such as preclearance, in Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act where applicable in the 1960s and 1970s but as the environment has changed, the sections now violate States rights and power to regulate elections that was granted to them by the Tenth Amendment. The Court also held that the formula established is outdated and does not fall in line with the changes that have occurred in the past 50 years. Justice Thomas, who wrote the concurring opinion, argued that since blatant discrimination is now rare, “Congress cannot constitutionally justify placing the burden of Section 5 on the states in question” (SHELBY COUNTY v.
Mid-term Essay Chapter XV: Black Voters: I found this chapter very interesting because of the Voting Rights Act Movement, the Civil War (1861-65) and the 15th Amendment passed in 1870. The fifteenth amendment forbade each of the states from denying black male citizens of the United States the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Officials had even told black voters that they had the date and time wrong. Black voters were often forced to take literacy tests, which they undoubtedly failed. The most outrageous way of refusing black males the right to vote was that officials in the Southern states had been known to force black voters to “recite the entire Constitution.”
In the concurring opinion Justice Roberts agrees that there is still voter discrimination around the country and that another law addressing current conditions could be written. In his letter to the senators Martin Luther King Jr. says that people who are not giving full rights to citizens is like stealing valuable property, “Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber”(28). The Voting Rights Act was some sort of punishment for the states that were robbing the people of their right to vote, and it was what protected these minorities from things such as literacy test and poll taxing. Without the Voting Rights Act is like letting the robber rob again, but in this case is letting the state legislators make laws that will prevent minorities in casting their vote, and eventually electing less people of color to office. This shows that the social hierarchy is still embedded in the structure of the legal system and that the dominant race will keep implementing their ideologies to keep these inequalities. Justice Roberts and the rest of the justices believe there should be an improved law to replace the Voting Rights Act, aware that the process could take years which means another imbalance between minorities and dominant races in the legal
Voting rights have been a constant struggle for most people in America. During the eighteenth century, only property owning white men were able to vote. This means that the colored individuals and women were excluded from the basic right to vote. The southern white society deeply opposed the idea of African Americans voting, creating discriminating legislations furthering the problem in a society dominated by White Americans. Lyndon B. Johnson outlines the differences between the law and justice and emphasize the fact that laws must be questioned in order for justice to be served. Laws are created for an equal platform for all citizens of America but some laws do not encompass the entire situation to serve justice.
For more than decades the court has continued to be pivotal in some of the biggest decisions for the social identity of America. Specifically noting that for many years the majority of Americans supported things that shaped the identity of American history (i.e. Slavery, Gay marriage, Sodomy, etc.). Erwin Chemernisky continues to examine whether the courts roles in major social issues have failed the American people or not. Erwin continues to explain that the supreme courts failures culminated together, are not only a failure for race issues in America, but also a failure to interpret the constitution effectively (21). These broad generalizations of the court flourish throughout his book, however, it is final assessment of the court that leaves the most to be contended with. Specifically noting that overall the court has done way more harm than good with regards to addressing minority issues an in wake of the warren court has continued to make flawed decisions in favor of the majority (53). This rhetoric must be addressed and analyzed by first looking to professor Erwin’s view of the courts take on minority, secondly analyzing his take on the court before and after the warren era and lastly addressing his support and analysis of the purpose of judicial review. Through this analysis it will become evident that Erwin Chemernisky has misinterpreted the supreme courts position as a protector of minority rights instead of the upholder and interpreter of the constitution and law.
This confirms that discrimination of any kind concerning race does undeniably violate the fifteenth amendment. Today, the questions still arise about whether voting rules do contradict with the fifteenth amendment. Voter ID laws, which are supposed to protect us against voter fraud and secure the voting system, have been questioned whether they can be discriminative. Minorities can have more trouble finding important documents to prove their identity, which could be considered a barrier to voting which potentially violates the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the fifteenth amendment. All of the twenty-seven amendments are important fundamental principles in our country, the fifteenth amendment, in particular, allows anyone to vote and does not discourage people to vote because of the color of their
Following the Civil War and freeing of slaves all over America a new question arose: Should black people be able to vote? Further, were they even citizens in the fullest sense? Now freed from slavery, black Americans found themselves in a political limbo where they were no longer property but not fully citizens. In an effort to extend protection from discrimination at the poll booth, an amendment to the Constitution was passed declaring it unlawful to deny voting on account of race. This amendment, however, was met with unprecedented resistance. Suppression of the black vote was just one step in preventing black Americans from being treated as citizens.
Racial gerrymandering is also a conflict to the XIV Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because the district maps in Virginia’s case favors whites over African-Americans, giving them more votes in legislation of districts. African Americans don’t have an equal representation because of how the districts were drawn. Although the African-American population in Virginia isn’t much compared to the white population, that does not mean that the number of African-Americans should consist of one commonwealth representative. This exemplifies how African-Americans’ chance to obtain such a political position in Virginia is unfair as a result of gerrymandering.
Throughout history, there has been discrimination against race, religion, gender, orientation, age, among many other things. From the British preventing the colonists’ rights to the “separate but equal” doctrine people used to justify discrimination against African Americans, America has had its fair share of it. After years of the mockery of equality that African Americans had, change was needed. Out of the thousands of voices who brought the winds of change, that were heard the most were: Martin Luther King Jr., for convincing people to join their cause; Thurgood Marshall, who used the law to get people to listen to their voices; and the Silent Majority, for without them, freedom would never truly ring from every mountainside.
Historically in America, voting has been a relatively discriminatory practice. It has limited and deprived many individuals of many diverse races, ethnicities, and walks of life from casting their votes to select the individual who they feel is most educated, and skilled to represent their interests. Not only has this been proven to be wrong by discriminating minority groups in voting, it also has proved to be a process, which minimizes the largest growing demographics in the country. Furthermore, with millennials growing to become more politically active, minority groups are becoming more politically involved than ever. Taking this into account an important question that is raised by the author William Eskridge in his book “Legislation and Statutory Interpretation” is “Would minorities be better off with more representatives who had to pay attention to their interests because they are a powerful and organized constituency, rather than with a few representatives of minority districts who specialize in protecting only their interests?” (Eskridge,Frickley,& Garrett, 2006, pp.55).
Throughout the semester we have touched upon many instances for which the legal history of America effects the life of a black America, especially in “We Shall Overcome” Alexander Tsesis takes on the task of looking at civil rights through the “lens of legal history’. “The Ballot or The Bullet” displays the political message that the ‘ballot’ is freedom, and thus power through the freedom to vote. Malcom X hounds in on the political idea that the white man preys on the black man for votes, but then allows filibustering to happen in the Senate so nothing gets passed to promote equality for black Americans. Alexander writes frequently through the book how skewed politics become for blacks once their vote is legalized. That although, they can
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.
Voting is a staple of freedom in the United States, it allows for the people to participate in their government by electing officials they feel advocate for their beliefs and values. Throughout American history, threats and practices of disenfranchisement have occurred to various people groups. These attacks upon civil liberties have never been allowed to stand as activists have united to combat these types of circumstances. There have been long harsh battles waged in the struggle for all inclusive representation and it seems that another has once again rose for decision. This battle manifests itself as SCOTUS case: Evenwel v. Abbott. The case’s conflict is based in redistricting, and it implores the court to decide whether representation based on voting population or physical population is a more constitutional process. It is in regards to this subject that People’s United beseeches the court to decide on the side of representation based on physical population. It is our belief that this would be a fairer system of redistricting because its basis of representation, the equality that it entails, and the validity of the claim that those who support the voting population method make.