The Voters Rights Act (VRA) 1965 ensured every American participated in the voting exercise. From time to time, there has been a review of the Act to ensure that the existing vacuum is appropriately addressed. The Supreme Court, on June 25th, 2013, ruled that it was very unconstitutional to Use Section 4(b) in determining those subject to preclearance. This ruling sparked much debate, with two groups, some supporting the preclearance from the federal state while others were against it. This paper discusses the overview of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It examines the preclearance Act brought to the Supreme Court in 2013. Finally, it gives a general opinion preclearance fits modern democracy compared with other nations which have run free and fair elections.
The 1965 voting Right Act was an essential statutory that set out the differences between the state and federal governments on the issue of voting since the Civil war. Since then, the Supreme Court has given insight into the constitutionality in Section 5 about several voting rights and the practices that followed the democratic exercise. However, the provision where the federal government was responsible for oversight of elections was removed in 2013. Section 2 clearly showed that no conditions should be set for one to qualify as a voter1. The 1965 voting right had an immediate impact which was seen, and new black voters got enrolled, the section two of the Amendment, which was in line with the fifteen amendments, made more than a quarter of new black people to be registered as voters. The poll taxes were challenged and made unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment. This led to massive registration of voters; the thirteen counties with fewer blacks saw a tremendous registration of voters who before were prevented from participating in this democratic right. [1]
There are two views regarding preclearance those who feel that the federal government should be actively involved in it, while others think it should not be the case. Political scientists can see the 2013 Act as an attempt to identify areas with racial segregation and do away with discriminatory practices. The section 5 amendment wanted those who needed to make amendments to seek approval from the Attorney. Until the federal government approves it, nobody should be denied the right to vote. In brief, this can be seen as the best strategy to dislodge the barriers by the states or local governments in blocking minorities from exercising their right to vote. The Supreme Court in 2013 ensured that the discriminatory laws or procedures in place are not repeated in the future2. Those discriminatory measures that have existed since have been chiefly targeting minority groups. Therefore, those who support this believe that it ensures that minorities participate in the voting exercise.
The passing of these laws has helped to give the federal government the to weigh on the restrictions by some federal government before the state government or local district courts actualize them. This could help make standardization. However, the Shelby act permitted states to enact those measures reviewed earlier in Section 52. The right to vote is essential, just like other rights to people of color and the marginalized; therefore, some restrictions should be weighed to ensure that they are not barriers to access to voting right. [2]
Those with opposite views have two general arguments for their view. The first is that the Voting Rights Act is sufficient in addressing the discrimination that comes with voting and that there is no need for the federal government to grant the states the restrictions they put in elections. First, the federal government’s justification for giving grants to the states to help have a high turnout for black voters. It is believed that discrimination disappeared a long time ago. The North West court in 2009 noted that the voter registration rights had reached parity; therefore, concerns by the federal government might not be of use3. The states, therefore, have a right to have limited interference from the federal government. It is seen as an extraordinary intrusion into the affairs of the state government.
While the two antagonistic groups have varied views over the Act, there is some specific aspect in which they share the same ideas. Both do not agree with the idea of discrimination, and they believe that the state and federal governments have the powers to act against any malicious act that may hinder a full realization of the right to vote. More interpretations of the 1965 Act should be made to ensure everyone enjoys the democratic right to vote with no restraints.
Observing the elections that have taken place, I believe there is still some form of discrimination, which puts some vulnerable groups in some compromise. Therefore there is a need to ensure that the federal government checks what the state government is doing regarding elections. The states have diverse communities, and logically, there is a need to review some laws which are put in place to ensure compliance and ensure nobody is compromised in the voting exercise. [3]
During the administration of barrack, Obama 2008 –2015 intervened in the Texas case where it was believed that some laws had some form of discrimination3.
There are some marginalized groups who, for various reasons, have not fully exercised their rights to vote, especially in the black community; therefore, there is a need to regularly review what the states do regarding election laws to ensure they do not compromise the right to vote. Borrowing ideas from other countries like the United Kingdom, which have the most simplified law to ensure members are actively involved in elections, America needs to have fair laws that help everyone willingly participate in elections.
The United States is one of the countries globally ranked best in democracy; choosing leaders is done through a popular vote. Tie to time reviewing how the process ids dome is essential to ensure that nobody gets their rights flinched. Based on the 1965 Voting Act, many amendments have been made to ensure everyone takes part in elections. The 2013 Supreme Court verdict was such an amendment that made various individuals and lobby groups react differently. However, the concern for everyone is to have inclusivity in election acts. [4]
Bibliography
Parker, Keith, Dora Tilles, Clifton Brown, and Dawn Brown McGlotten. “Voter Participation in the Absence of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.” International Journal of Education, Culture and Society 6, no. 5 (2021): 159.
Raze, Kyle. “Voting rights and the resilience of Black turnout.” Economic Inquiry 60, no. 3 (2022): 1127-1141.
Shah, Paru, and Robert S. Smith. “Legacies of segregation and disenfranchisement: The road from Plessy to Frank and voter ID laws in the United States.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 7, no. 1 (2021): 134-146.
[1] Raze, Kyle. “Voting rights and the resilience of Black turnout.” Economic Inquiry
[2]Parker, Keith, Dora Tilles, Clifton Brown, and Dawn Brown McGlotten. “Voter Participation in the Absence of the 1965 Voting Rights Act
[3] Paru, and Smith. “Legacies of segregation and disenfranchisement(134-146)
[4] Ibd ;Paru, and Smith(1140-146)
write