Introduction:
A crucial element of civil rights law, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, has been in place for many years to support ensuring that African Americans, other minorities, those of low means, and the elderly may exercise their right to vote. It contains clauses about “pre-clearance” concerns, which the Supreme Court invalidated in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). According to the Voting Rights Act’s provisions on “pre-clearance,” certain states and political entities with a track record of racial discrimination must request “pre-clearance” from the US Department of Justice or the US District Court of the District of Columbia before making any proposed changes to their election laws. This is crucial because it guarantees that any modifications to the rules governing polling locations, district lines, voting processes, and associated issues do not effectively restrict the ability of particular groups, such as racial minorities, the underprivileged, and the elderly, to vote. The terms of the VRA will be covered in this article, along with the perspectives of individuals who favour and oppose the federal government’s ability to “pre-clear” legislation. Also, two methods of participating in politics will be discussed (Davidson).
Provisions of the Voting Rights Act that discuss the issue of “pre-clearance”:
President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law, which contained measures to guarantee all American residents equal access to voting rights. The pre-clearance clause of the VRA, which mandated that certain states and localities with a long history of racial discrimination submit all changes to voting rules to the federal government before they could be implemented, was a crucial component. This was done to prevent any modifications to voting laws that would have suppressed particular communities. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the pre-clearance requirement was later overturned, allowing states to alter their voting rules without seeking prior approval from the federal government (Davidson).
Distinguish between the two camps that believe the federal government should have “pre-clearance” authority:
For those who favour the federal government’s “pre-clearance” authority, it is crucial to have these protections in place to protect everyone who is entitled to vote and take part in the democratic process. They contend that to prevent unjust election regulations that can inadvertently deprive portions of the population of their right to vote, states with a history of discrimination should examine their legislation amendments individually. The pre-clearance regulations are no longer required, according to the ruling’s backers, who cite new state legislation intended to prevent voting fraud as proof. Pre-clearance requirements, they contend, are an invasive means for the federal government to control state and local voting procedures. Opponents of the decision argue that without the pre-clearance regulation, states would be more inclined to enact discriminatory legislation that would make it more difficult for specific communities to exercise their right to vote. They cite measures passed in 2014 and subsequently, such as Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina’s photo ID requirements, as examples of voter suppression. The argument made by those opposed to the federal government’s “pre-clearance” authority is that it is an overly complicated procedure that burdens state governments with paperwork while providing no actual advantage over local election authorities. Moreover, they contend that it amounts to an unjustified federal intervention in state elections and violates a state’s sovereignty.
Evidence from any election in 2014 or later:
It was taking the North Carolina midterm election of 2014 as an example. The question of whether or not the federal government should have the authority of “pre-clearance” was raised by the recent midterm elections. With various other election law limitations, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted a bill in 2013 mandating picture identification to cast a ballot in state elections. Because the state had previously been protected by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the law challenged the federal government’s pre-clearance authority. While the pre-clearance element of the statute had been invalidated by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Shelby County v. Holder case, the North Carolina measure has yet to be challenged in federal court. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned the North Carolina statute in July 2016 because it had been “passed with discriminatory purpose.” This eventually supports the argument that to safeguard people’s right to vote, and the federal government should have the authority to grant “pre-clearance” to states with a history of discrimination.
Furthermore, data from the 2014 election provides evidence for the potential advantages of pre-clearance that shows the adoption of previously obstructed voter ID legislation in metropolitan areas serves as proof of this. This legislation was designed to protect certain groups, such as Hispanics and African-Americans, who were more likely to be refused the right to vote owing to a lack of proper identification. In Wisconsin’s Milwaukee, where 40,000 voters could not fulfil the requirements for a valid ID in the 2014 gubernatorial election, this problem was particularly pervasive (Kennedy et al.).
On the one hand, proponents of federal pre-clearance assert that it helps guarantee that states do not unduly favour particular groups. Additionally, as the federal government is better equipped to identify possible discriminatory policies, it helps to strengthen the historically underprivileged and minority populations. Conversely, those against pre-clearance contend it is an excessively invasive approach since it calls for states to request federal approval for even the most minor adjustments. Opponents argue that poorer and more rural states, which are less likely to have the means to ensure their pre-cleared modifications, are disproportionately affected by pre-clearance (Yeomans).
Things to do to engage in the political process in pursuit of my position:
There are several ways to promote either position when participating in the political process. Speaking up and ensuring your voice is heard is one of the most important ways to become engaged. This may be achieved through organizing rallies, attending public hearings, and contacting elected officials via letters to voice your viewpoint. Participating in fundraising initiatives and supporting causes that share your ideas are two other ways to become engaged. This might entail joining groups like the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which fights for pre-clearance and works to legally defend voting rights, or getting involved with state organizations like North Carolina’s “Future of Political Participation.” To sum up, one may look into voting rules, determine whether states have a history of discrimination in voting practices, and contact lawmakers to voice opposition to any new voting regulations that effectively deny some people the right to vote.
Conclusion:
A crucial piece of civil rights legislation, the VRA and its pre-clearance requirements can simultaneously strengthen minority communities and guarantee election fairness. While proponents of the regulation emphasize the necessity of providing further protection against possible voter suppression, opponents contend that the rule is unnecessarily invasive and burdens the states unfairly. Recent election results show discriminatory practices are more likely to occur without pre-clearance requirements. Each interested person has a significant opportunity to participate in the political process, whether through demonstrating, attending hearings, or contributing financially to groups working to defend the right to vote.
Works Cited:
Davidson, Chandler. “The voting rights act: A brief history.” Controversies in Minority Voting 7 (1992).
Kennedy, Anthony M., Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr. ” Supreme Court Stops Use of Key Part of Voting Rights Act.” (2013).
Yeomans, William. “After Shelby County.” Hum. Rs. 40 (2013): 3.
write