Section 5 of this act forced the states, counties, cities, etc. with a history of disenfranchising minorities to submit any changes to the law to the Justice Department for review. The Act outlawed literacy tests and other obstacles to voting which were common at the time. The Justice Department would also monitor elections in those areas to ensure everyone had a fair chance to exercise their right to vote.
The areas affected by Section 5 do have a way to get out of this however. If they show that they have changed their ways and the Justice department approves their request, they can change their laws how they see fit.
From OurDocuments:
Between 1965 and 1969, the Supreme Court issued several key decisions upholding the constitutionality of Section 5 and affirming the broad range of voting practices for which preclearance was required. [See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327-28 (1966) andAllen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969)]
The law had an immediate impact. By the end of 1965, a quarter of a million new black voters had been registered, one-third by Federal examiners. By the end of 1966, only 4 out of the 13 southern states had fewer than 50 percent of African Americans registered to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was readopted and strengthened in 1970, 1975, and 1982.
The law had an immediate impact. By the end of 1965, a quarter of a million new black voters had been registered, one-third by Federal examiners. By the end of 1966, only 4 out of the 13 southern states had fewer than 50 percent of African Americans registered to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was readopted and strengthened in 1970, 1975, and 1982.
Last year it was announced that the Supreme Court would take up a case that would revisit the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. President Obama argued on Friday that the provision should be kept.
Some states are passing voter I.D. laws which are designed to suppress voting, despite what their supporters say. One supporter of the proposed law in Pennsylvania boldly stated that the law would give Mitt Romney Pennsylvania's electoral votes. Attorney General Eric Holder famously called these laws "poll taxes" for that is what they are.
In many polling places this past November would be voters had to stand in line for hours to cast their ballot. This was spotlighted at the State of the Union Address a few weeks ago when the President told the story of a woman who was 102 years old that went through that and showed the determination needed to exercise her right. This should not happen in the United States. We should be talking about such things in history classrooms, not on the news or certainly not a presidential address.
Now is clearly not the time for this provision to go away. If anything, it should probably be expanded to include the areas where these types of laws are being passed.
If you cannot win elections through ideas then you should not win. Changing laws to disenfranchise specific blocs of voters is cheating, pure and simple. Removing Section 5 would open the floodgates on legislation to disenfranchise more voters.
We will see on Wednesday what will happen to this provision. I know I will be watching closely.
No comments:
Post a Comment