| Line 95: |
Line 95: |
| | == The Voting Rights Act of 1965 == | | == The Voting Rights Act of 1965 == |
| | | | |
| − | The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most important and burdensome of all federal laws. Enacted pursuant to the 15th Amendment (which prohibits racial discrimination in voting laws), the Voting Rights Act requires pre-clearance by the U.S. Department of Justice of any changes in election laws by certain states and local government. Most of the States covered by the Voting Rights Act are in the South (including Florida and Texas), while some of the counties are located in unexpected places around the Nation (including New York). The Voting Rights Act prohibits changes to election laws in covered states that "[have] the purpose [or] will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color" 42 USC 1973c(a). | + | The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most important and burdensome of all federal laws. Enacted pursuant to the 15th Amendment (which prohibits racial discrimination in voting laws), the Voting Rights Act requires pre-clearance by the U.S. Department of Justice of any changes in election laws by certain states and local government. Most of the States covered by the Voting Rights Act are in the South (including Florida and Texas), while some of the counties are located in unexpected places around the Nation (including New York). The Voting Rights Act prohibits changes to election laws in covered states that "[have] the purpose [or] will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color."<ref>The citation in the "United States Code" is 42 U.S.C. 1973c(a).</ref> |
| | | | |
| | The basis for the law and where it applies is this: if there is any evidence of racial discrimination in how elections are run by a State or local government, then it can be designated as subject to the Voting Rights Act for future elections. The Act was enacted in a bipartisan manner by an overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled Congress and president in order to exert greater federal control over the election process in response to Southern states continually inventing new devices that prevented or abridged the ability for blacks to vote. Congress declared the purpose of its pre-clearance provision to shift the burden to States: {{cquote|Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.}} | | The basis for the law and where it applies is this: if there is any evidence of racial discrimination in how elections are run by a State or local government, then it can be designated as subject to the Voting Rights Act for future elections. The Act was enacted in a bipartisan manner by an overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled Congress and president in order to exert greater federal control over the election process in response to Southern states continually inventing new devices that prevented or abridged the ability for blacks to vote. Congress declared the purpose of its pre-clearance provision to shift the burden to States: {{cquote|Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.}} |
| | ''South Carolina v. Katzenbach'', 383 U.S. 301, 328 (1966) (citation omitted). | | ''South Carolina v. Katzenbach'', 383 U.S. 301, 328 (1966) (citation omitted). |
| | | | |
| − | You might be surprised what is considered to be racial discrimination that triggers application of the Voting Rights Act for all future elections. In Texas, officials did not print a Spanish version of the ballot in one election, and in a 1975 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the criteria for coverage under Section 4 were written to include Texas based upon this action. Indeed, ballots now have to be printed at enormous local expense in numerous foreign languages, or else the Voting Rights Act could be applied against the state or local government. | + | You might be surprised what is considered to be racial discrimination that triggers application of the Voting Rights Act for all future elections. In Texas, officials did not print a Spanish version of the ballot in one election, and in a 1975 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the criteria for coverage under Section 4 were written to include Texas based upon this action. Indeed, ballots now have to be printed at enormous local expense in numerous foreign languages, not merely Spanish, or else the Voting Rights Act could be applied against the state or local government. |
| | | | |
| | The Voting Rights Act requires "pre-clearance" by the U.S. Department of Justice for any changes in election law by a state or local government that is covered by the Act. When South Carolina passed its voter ID law, the Voting Rights Act gave the Obama Administration the power to delay and object to the law, because South Carolina is covered by the Voting Rights Act. Even though there is nothing overtly racial about South Carolina's voter ID law,<ref>Some opponents of voter ID laws compare them to Jim Crow era laws that sought to limit voting by blacks. Also, Jim Crow era laws were facially neutral but had the effect of preventing blacks from voting.</ref> the Voting Rights Act has been used to force states to ensure that changes to voting procedures do not have discriminatory purpose or effect. | | The Voting Rights Act requires "pre-clearance" by the U.S. Department of Justice for any changes in election law by a state or local government that is covered by the Act. When South Carolina passed its voter ID law, the Voting Rights Act gave the Obama Administration the power to delay and object to the law, because South Carolina is covered by the Voting Rights Act. Even though there is nothing overtly racial about South Carolina's voter ID law,<ref>Some opponents of voter ID laws compare them to Jim Crow era laws that sought to limit voting by blacks. Also, Jim Crow era laws were facially neutral but had the effect of preventing blacks from voting.</ref> the Voting Rights Act has been used to force states to ensure that changes to voting procedures do not have discriminatory purpose or effect. |
| Line 122: |
Line 122: |
| | ===States Having Counties that Are Covered=== | | ===States Having Counties that Are Covered=== |
| | | | |
| − | *California | + | *California (counties) |
| − | *Florida | + | *Florida (counties) |
| − | *New York | + | *Michigan (townships) |
| − | *North Carolina | + | *New Hampshire (townships) |
| − | *South Dakota | + | *New York (counties) |
| − | | + | *North Carolina (counties) |
| − | ===States Having Townships that Are Covered===
| + | *South Dakota (counties) |
| − | | |
| − | *Michigan
| |
| − | *New Hampshire
| |
| | | | |
| | The U.S. Supreme Court has taken a big case from Alabama that challenges the Voting Rights Act, and by June 2013 is expected to render a decision that may trim back the scope or influence of this law. | | The U.S. Supreme Court has taken a big case from Alabama that challenges the Voting Rights Act, and by June 2013 is expected to render a decision that may trim back the scope or influence of this law. |