article

July 13, 2006 (House) Renewed
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Long title: ---
Introduced by: ---
Dates
Date passed: August 3, 1965 (House)
August 4, 1965 (Senate)
Date signed into law: August 6, 1965
Amendments: ---
Related legislation: ---

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 to 1973aa-6) outlawed the requirement that would-be voters in the United States take literacy tests or pay a poll tax to qualify to register to vote, and it provided for federal registration of voters -- instead of state or local voter registration which had often been denied to minorities and poor voters -- in areas that had less than 50% of eligible minority 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% Black. It was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on August 6, 1965.

Background

Many Black and, in general, poor Americans were being intimidated from participating in the voting process. Many of the affected voters were illiterate, therefore they were discouraged from voting by election and government officials. Some Dixiecrats (Southern Democrats) 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.

Vote count

Senate: 77–19
  • Democrats: 47–17
  • Republicans: 30–2
House: 333–85
  • Democrats: 221–61
  • Republicans: 112–24
Conference Report: Senate: 79–18
  • Democrats: 49–17
  • Republicans: 30–1
House: 328–74
  • Democrats: 217–54
  • Republicans: 111–20

Periodic renewal

The temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act have been renewed four times and remain in force. They were renewed in 1970, 1975, and are being considered for renewal in 2006, one year in advance of their 2007 expiration date. In 1982, Congress amended and renewed the Act, making some sections (perhaps most importantly section 2) permanent while renewing the remainder (perhaps most importantly section 5) for 25 years (July 1, 2007). As of July 2006, the temporary provisions enjoy widespread bipartisan support. However, a number of Republican lawmakers acted to amend, delay or defeat renewal of the Act. One group of lawmakers led by Georgia congressman Lynn Westmoreland, come from some pre-clearance states, and claim that it is no longer fair to target their states given the passage of time since 1965 and the changes that have taken place since then. Another group supports an amendment offered by Steve King of Iowa, seeking to strip provisions from the Act that require that translators or multilingual ballots be provided for U.S. citizens who do not speak English. The bill has, however, been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, with support from Republican House leadership, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr..

Section 2

Section 2 contains a general prohibition on voting discrimination, enforced through federal district court litigation. Congress amended this section in 1982, prohibiting any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result. The 1982 amendment provided that proof of intentional discrimination is not required. The provision focused instead on whether the electoral processes is equally accessible to minority voters.at 3.

This section is permanent and does not require renewal.

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. A covered jusidiction that seeks to obtain Section 5 preclearance, either from the Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, must demonstrate that a proposed voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of discriminating based on race or color. In some cases, they must also show that the proposed change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating against a language minority group. Membership in a "language minority group” includes “persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage.” The burden of proof under current Section 5 jurisprudence is on the covered jurisdiction to establish that the proposed change does not have a retrogressive purpose.at 6

Covered jurisdictions may not implement voting changes without federal preclearance. The Justice Department has 60 days to respond to a request for a voting change. If the Justice Department or federal court rejects a request for preclearance, the jurisdiction may continue the prior voting practice or may adopt a substitute and seek preclearance for it. If, the jurisdiction illegally implements a voting change before the Justice Department denies preclearance, the jurisdiction must return to the pre-existing practice or enact a different change.

Those states which had less than 50% of the voting population voting in 1960 and/or 1964 were originally covered. (This was when the average voting age population during a presidential election was in the mid 60s instead of around 50% since in 1996, 2000, and 2004.) In addition some counties and towns that have been found in violation of section 2 have since been added. Some counties in Virginia (see below) have been since found to no longer need preclarence.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recently reviewed the Justice Department preclearance record and found that the percentage of DOJ objections to submitted changes has declined markedly over the 40-year period of the Act:

  • During the three legislative periods that the Commission examined, 1965–1974, 1975–1982, and 1982–2004, the number of submitted changes from jurisdictions rose substantially, from 4,998 to 414,927. The proportion of objections to submitted changes decreased throughout, from 5.5 percent in the first period to 1.2 percent in the second, and to 0.6 percent in the third. Over the last 10 years, the overall objection rate was so low as to be practically negligible, at less than 0.1 percent.at 62
The Commission's two Democratic members dissented from the report, charging that the Commission had "abandon* the field of battle." at 62 (Commissioners Michael Yaki and Arlan Melendez, dissenting).

Jurisdictions that must be precleared

States

Counties

Towns

Bail Out

The term "bail out" refers to the process by which covered jurisdictions may seek exemption from Section 5 coverage. In order to bail out, a covered jurisdiction needs to obtain a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia.

Before August 1984, this process required covered jurisdictions to demonstrate that the voting test that they used immediately before coverage was not used in a discriminatory fashion. The 1982 amendment included two significant changes. First, Congress provided that where a state is covered in its entirety, individual counties in that state may separately bail out. Second, Congress completely redesigned the bailout standard. The post-1984 bailout standard requires that a covered jurisdiction demonstrate nondiscriminatory behavior during the 10 years prior to filing and while the action is pending and that it has taken affirmative steps to improve minority voting opportunities..at 44.

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.Reynolds v. Sims 377 U.S. 533, 561-562 (1964): "Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized. Almost a century ago, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, the Court referred to "the political franchise of voting" as "a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights." 118 U.S. at 370. 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.

References

External links

1965 in law | African-American history | Elections in the United States | History of voting rights in the United States | United States Congressional districts | United States federal civil rights legislation | Great Society programs

Voting Rights Act | Voting Rights Act

 

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the "Voting Rights Act".

Home Page • arts • business • computers • games • health • hospitals • home • kids & teens • news • physicians • recreation• reference • regional • science • shopping • society • sports • world