THE VOTING RIGHTS UMBRELLA

THE VOTING RIGHTS UMBRELLA

Table of Contents

Order ID# 45178248544XXTG457	Plagiarism Level: 0-0.5%	Writer Classification: PhD competent
Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago	Delivery: Minimum 3 Hours	Revision: Permitted
Sources: 4-6	Course Level: Masters/University College	Guarantee Status: 96-99%

Instructions

THE VOTING RIGHTS UMBRELLA

The consequences of Shelby County v. Holder have been dramatic. The decision has enabled states to implement voting changes that had previously been

blocked by Section 5, and further emboldened others across the country that

had been moving forward with their own voting restrictions since 2010, including passing strict photo identification laws, cutting early voting periods, and requiring more stringent documentation for registration. The Brennan Center for

Justice has found that race appears to be a significant motivating factor in states

that have introduced such restrictive laws since 2010. Seven of the eleven states

with the highest African-American turnout in 2008 have implemented new restrictions, as have nine of the twelve states with the largest Hispanic population

growth from 2000 to 2010. North Carolina, for example, experienced a 111% increase in Hispanic population growth and a twenty-one percent increase in African American population growth between 2000 and 2010. Within months of

Shelby County v. Holder, the state legislature passed new legislation to cut the

early voting period, eliminate same-day registration and voting during the early

voting period, and set strict voter identification requirements.

Texas offers one of the most extreme examples of voter suppression in the

wake of Shelby County v. Holder. In 2011, the state passed the nation’s harshest

law requiring people to show photo identification in order to vote. The law

seemed carefully crafted to slice the electorate: it would not allow a University

of Texas ID to be used for voting, but would, however, recognize a concealed

handgun license. The law was then blocked from implementation under Section

5 of the Voting Rights Act. Within hours of the Supreme Court’s decision in

Shelby County v. Holder, the state announced it would put the restrictions into

effect. The Justice Department and voting rights groups challenged the law. After a nine-day trial, federal judge Nelva Gonzalez Ramos issued a powerful 147-

page opinion. The law, she ruled, “creates an unconstitutional burden on the

right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and

African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory

purpose. The Court further holds that [the Texas law] constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax.” She found that 608,000 voters simply did not have the required form of ID. Despite this powerful factual record, the Supreme Court

emailed out an early Saturday morning decision allowing it to remain in effect

for the 2014 election in an emergency ruling.

It is worth noting that the new voting requirements coincide with aggressive efforts in some states to use redistricting practices—designed to ensure that

African American voters had the opportunity to elect some officials of their

own race—to dilute the impact of their votes by concentrating them so heavily

in a few districts that as a practical matter they can influence only elections in

districts dominated by their own race. This compounds already existing problems with gerrymandering and redistricting. For example, in 2012, the total

votes for Democrats in the House of Representatives exceeded the total votes

for Republicans in North Carolina and Virginia. But North Carolina’s congressional delegation had nine Republicans and four Democrats, while Virginia’s

had eight Republicans and four Democrats. In 2012, Democratic House candidates won more votes in Pennsylvania, but the legislature drew electoral lines so

385

YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW 33:383 2015

Republicans won thirteen of eighteen U.S. House seats. That same year, President Obama won Ohio, but Republicans won twelve of sixteen House seats.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder and the restrictive

voting laws it has enabled and encouraged are a stark reversal of nearly fifty

years of progress. Congress should restore the provisions of the Voting Rights

Act struck down by the courts and resume our historic march toward expanding the franchise.

Vast numbers of voters are disenfranchised—often by accident—by the nation’s ramshackle voting system. Today at least 50 million eligible citizens are

not registered. Many fall off the rolls when they move, as people so frequently

do in our mobile society. To make the right to vote real today requires modernization of voter registration and our election systems. Here, there is considerable room for optimism. The bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election

Administration, chaired by the counsels for the Obama and Romney campaigns, put forward an array of reforms that could improve voting without partisan rancor. For example, the Commission recommended that states should

adopt online voter registration, audit polling places for accessibility, and create

statewide standards for training poll workers.

In February 2015, Oregon enacted a new law to automatically register anyone who renews a driver’s license or state identification card. Hundreds of

thousands were registered in the first week. This could truly mark a paradigm

shift, with government assuming the responsibility to ensure that every eligible

citizen is able to vote. Such digital reforms also make it harder to commit the

already rare crime of voter fraud.

One more step can make a huge difference. A lasting legacy of Jim Crowera laws is felony disenfranchisement. Many of these provisions were imposed

in the 1890s, as southern states found ways to make it impossible for AfricanAmerican former slaves to vote. I believe that people who have paid their debt

to society, many of whom are working and paying taxes, should have the right

to vote. In 1977, as Attorney General of Arkansas, I sponsored one of the first

laws reforming this practice since the end of Reconstruction. Now, there is a

growing bipartisan consensus to end felony disenfranchisement. We should join

the democratic community in reforming these laws.

America’s tremendous diversity can make us the world’s leading force for

peace and prosperity for generations to come. But in order to give our children

and grandchildren the future they deserve, we must remove barriers to participation and opportunity, not erect them. As a nation, we owe it to the many heroes of the Civil Rights Movement who made our past progress possible, and to

all those whose future progress depends on it.

386

Copyright of Yale Law & Policy Review is the property of Yale Law & Policy Review and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email

articles for individual use.

RUBRIC
Excellent Quality 95-100%	Introduction 45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.		Literature Support 91-84  points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.			Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score 50-85%	40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.		83-76  points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.			52-49  points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality 0-45%	37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.		75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.			48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow

 

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!