Voting Rights Act of 1965

Voting Rights Act of 1965
89 United States Congress
Long title:	---
Introduced by:	---
Dates
Date passed:	August 3, 1965 (U.S. House of Representatives) August 4, 1965 (U.S. Senate)
Date signed into law:	August 6, 1965
Amendments:	---
Related legislation:	---

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-10) outlawed the requirement that would-be voters in the United States take literacy tests to qualify to register to vote, and it provided for federal registration of voters in areas that had less than 50% of eligible voters registered. The act also provided for DOJ oversight to registration, and the Department's approval for any change in voting law in districts whose populations were at least 5% African-American. It was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on August 6, 1965.

Background

Many poor whites and African Americans were being intimidated from participating in the voting process. Many of the affected voters where illiterate therefore they were discouraged by voting and government officials to not vote. Some Dixiecrats argued that primary elections were an internal party affair, and that the party was a "private club," so the government had no authority over its criteria for membership and other factors relevant to participating in primary elections. The campaign to bring about federal intervention to rectify this situation culminated in the Selma to Montgomery marches.

Legislative history

The Act was sent to Congress by President Lyndon Johnson on March 17, 1965. The Senate passed the bill on May 26 (after a successful cloture vote on May 25); the House passed it on July 10. After differences between the two bills were resolved in conference, the House passed the Conference Report on August 3, the Senate on August 4. President Johnson signed the Act on August 6, 1965.

Criticism

It has been argued that the Act is a counterpart of political correctness and is very detrimental to the integrity of Americas voting process. Many people feel that voting is not only a privilege but a responsibility that every citizen must maintain to be a participant in democracy. Opponents state that if someone is illiterate, that it clearly indicates that the person is not an informed educated voter and will be very susceptible to have their vote manipulated for political purposes. This is perceived as very unfair for uneducated, uninformed, illiterate, people to “cancel out” the votes of highly educated and informed voters. Many people feel that this act devalues ones right to vote and takes away accountability from politicians. It has also been advocated by voting rights groups to reinstate the poll tax or seek alternatives such as national literacy test for all voters regardless of their race and income.

Support

Many people feel that this act is absolutely vital in civil rights and that every person should have the right to vote. Also that people should be encouraged to participate in the democratic process and just need a chance to succeed. Proponents argue that this is fair and it levels the playing field for all citizens regardless of their race. (Although the act mainly benefits African Americans) Also that individuals shouldn’t be discouraged from voting from their unfortunate backrounds.

Periodic renewal

The Voting Rights Act has been renewed many times and remains in force. It was renewed in 1970 and 1975. In 1982, Congress amended and renewed the Act for another 25 years. Some portions of the Act are up for renewal in 2007.

Preclearance

Section 5 of the Act requires that the United States Department of Justice "preclear" any "covered jurisdiction"'s attempt to change a voting standard, practice or procedure. Section 5, as currently authorized by Congress, stays in effect until 2007. The burden of proof under Section 5 is on the governmental body to establish that the proposed change does not have a retrogressive purpose.

States

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arizona
• Georgia
• Louisiana
• Mississippi
• South Carolina
• Texas
• Virginia, except for Fairfax City, Virginia, Frederick County, and Shenandoah County.

Counties

• California: Kings, Merced, Monterey, Yuba
• Florida: Collier, Hard, Henry, Hillsborough
• New York: Bronx, Kings, New York
• North Carolina: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Camden, Caswell, Chowan, Cleveland, Craven, Cumberland, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gaston, Gates, Granville, Greene, Guilford, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Jackson, Lee, Lenoir, Martin, Nash, Northhampton, Onslow, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Person, Pitt, Robeson, Rockingham, Scotland, Union, Vance, Washington, Wayne, Wilson
• South Dakota: Shannon, Todd.

Towns

• Michigan: Clyde Township, Buena Vista Township
• New Hampshire: Rindge, Millsfield Township, Pinkham's Grant, Stewartstown, Stratford, Grafton County, Benton, Antrim, Boscawen, Newington, Unity

No affirmative right to vote

U.S. citizens commonly hear of a "right to vote," yet there is no such federal right. However, the Voting Rights Act and three constitutional amendments that prevent discrimination in granting the franchise have established in United States Supreme Court jurisprudence that there is a "fundamental right" in the franchise, even though voting remains a state-granted privilege. U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., re-introduced House Joint Resolution 28 in March of 2005 to amend the U.S. Constitution and create a federal right to vote. The resolution had 58 co-sponsors as of April, 2005.

Reference

• "Frequently Asked Questions on DOJ and Preclearance", from VotingLaw.com