Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
History of voting rights give us the ballot essay
The history of voting rights essay
An essay on rights of voting
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: History of voting rights give us the ballot essay
The case of Gomillion v Lightfoot is a Supreme Court case ruling on the 15th amendment. The case has to do with an act of the Alabama legislature re-drew the electoral district boundaries of Tuskegee, and to replace what had been a area with a square shape into a 28 sided figure. The consequence of the new district was to exclude essentially all blacks from the city limits of Tuskegee and place them in a district where no whites lived. This caused voter dilution, which diminishes a minority group's political power by weakening the effectiveness of its vote. This was a relatively new issue for the Supreme Court to deal with. Looking at past cases dealing with similar issues, Baker v. Carr is a an example that shows how redistricting was looked at as a justiciable issue by the Supreme court, prior to Gomillion v. Lightfoot. The Supreme Court had usually left redistricting as a matter that should dealt with by the states and congress. This can also be seen in Colegrove v. Green, in which Justice Frankfurter declined to involve the Court in the districting process arguing that the political nature of apportionment disallowed judicial intervention. The Significance: Prior to this ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court had been hesitant to obstruct with the rights of states to create political boundaries in their own towns and cities. This case nevertheless confirmed that states can’t use their power to deprive citizens of their voting rights which are guaranteed by the Fifteenth Amendment. The Impact: This case caused a shift in the Supreme Court's logic and involvement with political redistricting cases. In future cases, the Supreme Court ruled that redistricting be done according to population. Though gerrymandering, which is the act or... ... middle of paper ... ...retation is long: • Birth - "All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the U.S. and the U.S. State where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868) • "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" - (15th Amendment, 1870) • "On account of sex" - (19th Amendment, 1920) • In Washington, D.C., presidential elections (23rd Amendment, 1961) • (For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964) (Wikipedia) Although establishing rights for many different members of society, the voting rights act isn’t the end of this concern. We can learn from history that the interpretation of voting rights will always be in question by some new player. The best we can do is to understand that voting rights in American history has had much to with time and place, thus the reason for the ongoing change in the interpretation.
elections is debatable—and the non-inclusiveness of early American elections undeniable— the Constitution unequivocally establishes regular elections for seats in the House of Representatives and for the executive office (articles I and II respectively), a key component of Poloni-Staudinger and Wolf’s definition of liberal democracy (35). Moreover, the inclusion of a series of individual rights appended to the Constitution (U.S. Const. ams. 1-10) buttresses Constitutional protection of individual civil rights and civil liberties, two popular protections imperative for any state seeking the designation liberal
.... This new amendment prohibited the states to deny the right to vote because of race.
In the Dred Scott case, serious constitutional questions were raised when the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that Scott and other slaves were not considered citizens, because the constitution gave the right of citizenship only to members of the white race. This “bombshell” decision galvanize opposition to slavery among northerners who were outraged that Mr. Scott could not sue in court for his freedom. Though Mr. Scott claimed that because he had lived as a resident of a free state he was considered a free man, the U. S. Supreme Court declared that the federal government did not have the power to prohibit slavery in federal territories. Therefore the Supreme Court’s “threatening and immoral” ruling in this case annulled the Missouri Compromise, a Congressional act passed in 1820 that allowed Missouri to be admitted as a slave state, while prohibiting slavery in the Louisiana Purchase north of latitude 36°30′N. Furthermore, for northerners who opposed slavery and wanted it outlawed, this decision implied that slavery could openly and freely move into the north. Outraged filled the
...n their opinion, protected the right of citizens to vote. The Constitution was also used in the majority opinion to support the striking down of Section 4(b). Justice Roberts said that the constraints of Section 4(b) are in violation of the Constitution, which gives the power to regulate elections to the states, not to the federal government. Section 4(b) is a federal act that singles out the voting processes of certain states and jurisdictions. It can be said that the regulation of Section 5 and the coverage of Section 4(b) allow for the federal government to control in the elections of the covered areas. This case struck down Section 4(b), and effectively eliminated the use of Section 5, of the Voting Rights Act, which many consider to be an extremely significant act in the Civil Rights Movement. Shelby County v. Holder has not been superseded by any other cases.
In overturning the decision made in Betts v. Brady the Court made a very important and strong statement that took a step in the direction of a fair democracy. This decision was as follows, in Betts v. Brady the Court decided that the due process clause of the 14th amendment was fulfilled, even if the defendant(s) are not provided legal counsel to present their
However, it does not speak about states needing to draw districts boundaries based on their representatives.Not only is it very controversial, state legislatures and politicians are taking advantage of the broken system. Based on what district an individual lives in sometimes their vote would not count or one county's vote counts more than another. This system of apportionment is a complicated system that your average American citizen doesn’t get nor understands. Throughout apportionment which turns into malapportionment on many occasions, there is an underlying or hidden reason as to why state legislatures use this approach. Whether it’s to keep their party in power or to not grant certain group's voting
4. The Court overstepped its prescribed authority, in its ruling, by violating the separation-of-powers doctrine in an attempt to achieve the best possible outcome: “the plurality seems to view it as its mission to Make Every thing Come Out Right, rather than merely to decree the consequences…” (pg. 319).
This case established the power of judicial review in the U.S. Supreme Court. This power was later extended to all Federal Courts. This empowered Federal Courts to decide legal issues raised by state constitutions and common-law decisions that may violate the Constitution. They are to review laws that are enacted by The President and Congress, identify and invalidate those that violate the Constitution of the United States.
The first person to speak before the court was Misha Tseytlin, he was speaking on behalf of the appellants. One of his main arguments was that they are “shift districting” by moving the power to determine the maps from the federal officials to the courts. The first person to respond to him was Anthony Kennedy. He said that there has not been a case yet that helped solve this problem, but this could be the first. He also stated that this could possibly be a 1st amendment problem, but Tseytlin disagreed and said it was neither a problem with that nor the 14th amendment. The next point Misha made was that “political and racial gerrymandering are often raised together”. The first justice to respond to this was Ruth Ginsberg. She talked about a previous case called the “Max black plan” which was an attempt by the legislature to make as many African American districts as
Starting with methods, such as, pool taxes and literacy tests, cunningly denying individuals their right to vote or convey their political voice continues in America today. Saito in the article “The Political Significance of Race” describes the effects that redistricting and gerrymandering can have on a community, by using the decennial census as a “unique opportunity to examine the relation between race and politics because the 1965 Voting Rights Act requires the recognition and protection of the political rights of ethnic and racial minorities” (120). Redistricting is the redrawing of districts, block by block supposedly to ensure each district has about the same number of people, and to guarantee that each voter has an equal political say. Redistricting can determine which political party is in power in each district by deliberately ensuring the district is drawn to include the people who support a specific party. This is called gerrymandering, the manipulation of district lines to protect or change political power. This can be used as a strategy to dilute the political voice of minority groups by conveniently drawing the lines to minimize their
The Supreme Court is perhaps most well known for the Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954. By declaring that segregation in schools was unconstitutional, Kevern Verney says a ‘direct reversal of the Plessy … ruling’1 58 years earlier was affected. It was Plessy which gave southern states the authority to continue persecuting African-Americans for the next sixty years. The first positive aspect of Brown was was the actual integration of white and black students in schools. Unfortunately, this was not carried out to a suitable degree, with many local authorities feeling no obligation to change the status quo. The Supreme Court did issue a second ruling, the so called Brown 2, in 1955. This forwarded the idea that integration should proceed 'with all deliberate speed', but James T. Patterson tells us even by 1964 ‘only an estimated 1.2% of black children ... attended public schools with white children’2. This demonstrates that, although the Supreme Court was working for Civil Rights, it was still unable to force change. Rathbone agrees, saying the Supreme Court ‘did not do enough to ensure compliance’3. However, Patterson goes on to say that ‘the case did have some impact’4. He explains how the ruling, although often ignored, acted ‘relatively quickly in most of the boarder s...
The majority opinion declared that public schools segregated is a denial of equal protection of the law under the 14th amendment “separate but equal.” The majority wanted to end segregation. Segregation in schools began to become abolished. However, minority groups and members of the civil rights movement were shocked by the Brown decision even without specific directions for implementation.
Nearly every state has its own qualifications and requirements concerning who can vote and under what circumstances. For example, Maryland voters must only present identification if they have never voted before and if they did not register in person, while Californian voters are not required to show any form of identification to vote. These qualifications are primarily decided by the state, with general guidelines being provided by the Constitution and the federal government. However, in certain situations, the federal government must intervene to determine the constitutionality of a certain law.
The right to vote is one of the most highly esteemed freedoms available to citizens in a democracy. For decades, political scientists have deliberated why so many Americans choose not to exercise their right to vote and to take part in the democratic process. Americans in cities, in particular, vote overwhelmingly less than they do in suburban and rural areas. While political scientists have often explained lower voter turnout as a consequence of a lack of education, low income, age, declining trust in government, and uncompetitive elections, only a few have studied the time costs associated with voting (Baretto, 445; Haspel and Knotts, 561). Even though fifty years have passed since the Voting Rights Act enfranchised marginalized citizens across America, the costs associated with voting continually prevent equal access to the ballot. One substantial cost for voting is a citizen’s ability to
Will and in this essay the author challenges the citizenship status of children born to illegal immigrants. Will argues that the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to any person born in the United States, is being misinterpreted. He explains how this misinterpretation leads to the actual act of illegal immigration. For example, by essentially rewarding the children of illegal immigrants with an American citizenship Will demonstrates how this provides an incentive for illegal immigration. The author makes clear the idea that when the 14th Amendment was written in 1866 it could not have included illegal immigrants since that concept did not exist at that time. He continues by using Indians as an example of people not included in the 14th Amendment since Indians and their children owed allegiance to their tribes. Finally, the author uses a decision by the Supreme Court in 1884 that declared both person and country must consent to the citizenship; therefore, if the source is illegal then the child should not be considered a