A Paper on Shelby County V. Holder free essay sample

With the condition to receive preclearance stated in section 5 of the Act from the Department of Justice before making any changes affecting the voting process, also came four other prohibitions. The prohibition of literacy test or other similar test or devices as a prerequisite to voter registration is one prevention. The requirement of jurisdictions with significant language minority populations to provide non-English ballots and oral voting instructions is another. Third is the prohibition of vote dilution, which is the remapping of districts to suppress the minority vote. The final provision was one of the most controversial of the Act. It established the federal oversight over the administrations of elections in areas where racism and discrimination thrived. This provision of the VRA was one of the most controversial because some citizens believed it was a major intrusion of States rights. The covered jurisdictions included nine states, most of them in the south. They are; Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Since its enactment it has been renewed four times. The most recent time in 2006, was signed into law by President George W. Bush, and renewed the Act for twenty-five more years. Soon to be heard before the United States Supreme Court, is the court case Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al. Shelby County argues that with an African American president elected twice, the VRA of 1965 has outlived its necessity. However, the tactics used to discriminate racially against the African American vote and the civil rights of United States citizens warranted this intrusion which is the purpose of the federal government. The entanglement of racism and discrimination was so deep in the south; the federal government had to establish the oversight of elections in those states with a history of discrimination. After an analysis, it should be found that then and now it is necessary to have this federal jurisdiction. Voting is one of the most important components of democracy. The ability to cast a vote in the United States is a right afforded to all of its free citizens. The Fifthteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution makes this evident. It was passed by Congress on February 26, 1869. The first part of this two sectioned Amendment reads, â€Å"The rights of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude. Section two finishes with, â€Å"The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation†. Following its ratification, violations of this right still occurred on accounts of race, color, and a previous condition of servitude. An example of this violation is the African American struggle to gain it. Primary sources from the United States Constitution, the United States Code of Laws, as well as secondary sources and recent newspaper articles can be used to form an opinion of the African American struggle to gain and protect their voting rights. The American Civil War ended in 1865. However, following the end of reconstruction and the withdrawal of national attention towards other national matters, southern racism reduced the newly freed peoples to second class citizens. Chapter one of Abraham and the Second American Revolution written by, James M. McPherson, discusses the categorization of the American Civil War as a revolution. To do this he analyzes the social and economic factors that justify the appropriate use of the title. He defined revolution as the overthrow of the existing social and political order by internal violence. Social and economic factors and conditions that contributed to his definition and categorization of the American Civil War as the nation’s second revolution include; education, distribution of property and self-ownership increased, and political power with the right to vote. According to McPherson, No other period in American history witnessed anything like so great a rate of relative change. † He finished with probably one of the most defining characteristics of a revolution, a shift in political power. McPherson wrote, â€Å"At the beginning of 1867 no black man could vote in the South, a year later they were a majority of registered voters in several ex-Confederate states. † Also adding to this evidence is the fact that four years after the war blacks held 15 percent of southern offices. In his conclusion, McPherson answer what may lead one to ask if the American Civil War was indeed an extraordinary revolution, one whose likes the world had ever seen. The answer lies in the exact opposite of revolution. Counterrevolution occurred at first chance which in so many ways blanketed the revolutionary characteristics to the best of its applicability. From 1865 to 1866, immediately after the war, black codes began to surface. The purpose of these codes were to keep black labor in a state of dependence and subjection as close to slavery as possible. These codes appeared in the forms of vagrancy laws, contract labor laws the subjected freedmen to peonage and sharecropping, and violence. This code also makes for the final piece of evidence toward support of McPherson’s goal in categorizing the American Civil War as a revolution. Southern redeemers, after the withdrawal of northern Republican interest, went through great lengths to counter evolve them. Why would that be? In order to stifle the effects of a revolution, counterrevolution tried to reverse it. This is the most relevant evidence of all analyzed data in support of McPherson’s defining because had not some counterrevolution taken place the evidence of the American Civil War as being a revolution would be even stronger. The redemption of the southern United States continued to thrive until the next century. The Civil Rights Movement in the nation in the 1950s and 1960s finally confronted the disenfranchisement of African Americans. One federal law produced during this time that forced the entanglement of racism and discrimination was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly in southern states where African American disenfranchisement from economic, political and social institutions was a way of life. According to the Act, All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory as enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. It also was the first federal statute of its kind to addressed voting rights stating: All citizens of the United States who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election by the people in any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous co ndition of servitude; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding. The Struggle for Black Equality, written by Harvard Sitkoff is a chronological narrative and interpretation of the struggle of the Civil Rights Movement. Sitkoff, a Professor of History at the University of New Hampshire writes, I believe then that the struggle was confronting the United States with an issue that had undermined the nations democratic institutions for nearly two hundred years, and that morality, justice, and a due concern for the future well-being of our society necessitated an end to racial inequality. In its two hundred and forty eight page entirety his book discusses the struggle for racial equality and justice between 1954 and 1980. He continues, given the rapidity with which the popular media have relegated the civil-rights battles to the scrap heap of inattention and indifference, I felt compelled to write of the strivings and sufferings of these battles to make real the promise of democracy. † In a book comprised of seven numbered chapters, he largely su cceeds in his goal. He argued within his book that 1964 CRA’s authorization of the government to withhold federal funds to; public programs practicing discriminations, banning of discrimination by employers and unions, creation of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, establishment of a Community Relations Service, and provisions of technical and financial aid to communities desegregating their schools helped to set fire to the path to African American equality. The passing of the Voting Act of 1965 dealt directly with voting rights. Chapter 20 of the United States Code of Laws, 42 USC 1973 titled,’ The Public Health and Welfare, is where the enforcement of the VRA is codified. According to the Cornell Legal Institute, â€Å"The original length of the VRA’s preclearance provision was five years; Congress reauthorized the provision for another five years in 1970, another seven in 1975, and another twenty-five years in 1982. † The most recent reauthorization in 2006 came after twenty one Congressional hearing on the matter. Upon its review, Congress found evidence of hidden methods that infringed on the voting rights. In these hearing, over 90 witnesses were heard from and 15,000 pages of evidence collected. There were 110 House members from covered jurisdictions, 90 of them voted for renewal. Soon after President George W. Bush signed the renewed Act into law. In his speech he stated, For some parts of our country, the Voting Rights Act marked the first appearance of African Americans on the voting rolls since Reconstruction. And in the primaries and elections that followed the signing of this act, many African Americans pulled the voting lever for the first time in their lives. In four decades since the Voting Rights Act was first passed, weve made progress toward equality, yet the work for a more perfect union is never ending. Well continue to build on the legal equality won by the civil rights movement to help ensure that every person enjoys the opportunity that this great land of liberty offers. And that means a decent education and a good school for every child, a chance to own their own home or business, and the hope that comes from knowing that you can rise in our society by hard work and God-given talents. Today, we renew a bill that helped bring a community on the margins into the life of American democracy. My administration will vigorously enforce the provisions of this law, and we will defend it in court. Now in 2013, Shelby County, Alabama has brought to the Supreme Court an argument that asserts that the provision for preclearance has outlived its purpose of protecting minority voters in an era where an African American man has been reelected to the presidency. Shelby County argues that the extension violated the authority of the Fifteenth Amendment with double standards among those states covered within federal jurisdiction. These double standards are explained as the failure of several of Alabama’s submissions to be cleared under the VRA. An example of this is when the state tried to enact a law that would require residents to provide proof of citizenship when they registered to vote. Alabama compares this to identical laws passed in Arizona and Georgia. Both of these states were cleared by the Department of Justice and did not require supplemental submissions. Shelby County also argues that the measure in which preclearance is levied upon covered jurisdictions is unequal. This is based on the preclearance denials from individual jurisdictions. The previous denials mostly comprise the justification for renewal. The County claims that these denials are based on vote dilution which is not a violation of the Fifteenth Amendment because it does not actually deny access to the ballot. The other dispute from Shelby County is the infringement of states’ rights. Before this federal law, no other offered the amount of protection the VRA had on voting discrimination. In requiring certain states to be cleared before implementing any voting changes, some say this is a major intrusion on a state’s sovereignty to hold elections. Since Shelby County insists vote dilution is not a direct violation of the Fifteenth Amendment, they impose a less drastic but still adequate measure be taken that is not so intrinsic on a state’s rights. The defense is led by United States Attorney General Holder. Holder argues that he extension in 2006 was within Congress’s authority and was necessary to counter regression in voting practices among states with a history of restrictions on minority voting. Holder asserts that the preclearance is a Constitutional power and the formula for coverage, in addition to the bailout provision found in section meets the requirements of the Constitutions Fifteenth Amendment. Holder also argues that the precedent case in establishing the manner in which each jurisdiction is covered was decided in 1966 in South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966). The Supreme Court concluded, â€Å"†¦case-by-case litigation had been wholly ineffective in guaranteeing African-Americans the right to vote and that nothing short of a prophylactic remedial scheme would succeed in eradicating the â€Å"insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country. † Holder then asserts that the bailout provision of the VRA also found in section 5, allows covered jurisdictions to apply to be removed from the preclearance requirement. To do so, the applicant state has to show that within the date of applying, they did not violate the VRA within the last ten years. This bailout option, argues the Attorney General, addresses the double standard Alabama claims to be subjected to. Alabama has failed to submit adequate evidence in support of a bailout option compared to other states under jurisdiction. In response, Shelby County insists that the bailout option is unachievable because of the preclearance criteria set in South Carolina v. Katzenbach and is unequal based on state to state. Also in response the plaintiff states that the use of out dated evidence from previous renewals is unconstitutional. However, the evidence used from past cases and current attempts to dilute the vote of African Americans and other minorities over the years is overwhelming. With this overwhelming, Congress finds no need on implementing another system to collect more evidence. Renewing the VRA in 2006 based coverage on election data from 1964, 1968, and 1972. This authorization of the use of old election data was challenged in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193 (2009). Northwest presented its argument based on the current needs of the VRA and not the first generational issues the Act initially addressed. Its argument rendered the used evidence out dated, as well as the first generational needs the Act addressed. The Supreme Court ruled the evidence used under Section 5 as justified by current needs and continues with, â€Å"†¦departure from the fundamental principal of equal sovereignty requires a showing that a statute’s disparate geographic coverage is sufficiently related to the problem that it targets. † This means that the compiled evidence directly related to the covered jurisdiction are justified because it directly relates to the jurisdictions under oversight. The main arguments presented in cases to take down the VRA are based on constitutionality and state rights. Constitutionality can be cited on the preclearance requirement and the formula in which jurisdiction is decided. In each renewal Congress used old evidence as precedence as well as newly collected data. We have seen this with the 21 Congressional hearings on its latest renewal. After analyzing the ways in which coverage and preclearance have been decided one assume that this federal law under the VRA is still necessary. When Shelby Count asserts that vote dilution is not a violation of the Fifteenth Amendment, they also assert that it can be used because it is not a denial of access to the ballet. However, remapping districts within a state to suppress votes is an underlying denial of the ballet. â€Å"Supreme Court to Hear Alabamas Countys Challenge to Voting Rights Act,† is a newspaper article published in the New York Times that will support this. It is written surrounding Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder. The article also gives a current example of the hidden discrimination tactics still being used. Jerome Gray is seventy four year old African American man in Evergreen, Alabama. In the summer of 2012 during an election he was removed from the voting rolls by a clerk who pulled the list based on new utility records. According to the VRA this violated the provision that some named states and local governments were required to obtain permission from the DOJ or from a federal court in Washington before making changes that affect voting. Voting is power. Its power lies in giving people an opportunity to elect candidates of their choosing. These elected candidates will hopefully stand for the beliefs and goals of their electives. Voting also gives a sense of liberty for those who are able to exercise it. Withholding the right to vote was a reminder to those excluded that they were un-American and ineligible to participate in our societies’ fundamental rights and civic duties. The entanglement of racism and discrimination was so deep in the south; the federal government had to establish the oversight of elections in those states with a history of discrimination. After an analysis, it should be found that then and now it is necessary to have this federal jurisdiction.