YALE LAW and POLICY REVIEW

YALE LAW and POLICY REVIEW

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

YALE LAW and POLICY REVIEW

The Voting Rights Umbrella

William Jefferson Clinton*

The right to vote is both fundam ental to individual liberty and to the proper functioning of representative democracy. W hen voting rights are denied, diluted, or restricted, the ability of governm ent to respond to our challenges and

increase our opportunities is im paired, and its legitimacy in doing so is dim inished.

A m ajor them e of American history is the steady expansion of the right to

vote. Once restricted to white male property owners, the franchise has been extended to include all citizens from their eighteenth birthday on. Fifty years ago,

the V oting Rights Act o f 1965 sought to end practices like literacy tests that

m ade it m ore difficult for African Americans to vote.

The Voting Rights Act was the result of years of struggle, paid for with the

blood, sweat, and tears of Americans black and white, young and old. It was

m ade possible by people like John Lewis, who absorbed blow after blow on

Selma’s E dm und Pettus Bridge, and by the elected officials led by President

Johnson willing to enact laws allowing us to live up to our founding principles.

The Voting Rights Act was designed to ensure that everyone’s right to vote

was protected in reality and not just in theory, by elim inating the obstacles to

voting that existed in 1965, and by preventing future, yet to be devised m echanism s to restrict the vote. The Act sought to accomplish these objectives

through two m ajor provisions: Section 2 prohibited any unfair voting practice

that would prevent a person from exercising his or her right to vote based on

race; and Section 5 required certain specially covered jurisdictions with a history

o f discrim ination, determ ined by a form ula in Section 4(b), to obtain federal

preclearance before im plem enting any voting changes.

Its effects were im m ediate. By removing exclusionary tactics like literacy

tests, and providing federal examiners and observers to m onitor registration

and elections, the num ber of African Americans registered to vote rose dram atically across the South. By 1968, the percentage of registered African Americans

in Mississippi had increased from 6.7 to 59.8; in Alabama from 19.3 to 51.6; and

in Louisiana from 31.6 to 58.9. The num ber of African Americans holding office

* William Jefferson Clinton is the 42nd President of the United States.

383

YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW 33:383 2015

at the local, state, and federal levels has also increased from fewer than 1,000 to

more than 10,000 over the last fifty years.

Congress has strengthened and extended the Voting Rights Act several

times over the last five decades, always in a bipartisan fashion, and most recently in 2006 when the extension was approved 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in

the Senate. There was also an increasing nationwide effort to make it easier for

people to register and cast their votes. The National Voter Registration Act of

i993> which I signed into law, required all states to make it possible for eligible

voters to register when applying for a driver’s license. States made it easier to

vote by increasing the number of days and polling places for advanced voting,

improving access for people with disabilities, making it easier to vote by mail,

and allowing Election Day registration. In spite of these advances, there has

been no evidence of increasing voter fraud. Until recently, our nation was on a

clear path toward making our democracy more inclusive and more representative.

Unfortunately, over the last few years, for the first time since the Voting

Rights Act was passed, it is becoming harder, not easier, for people to exercise

their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote.

Since 2011, nearly two dozen states have passed laws making it harder to

cast a ballot. They range from cutbacks on early voting (in eight states including

Ohio and North Carolina), to a repeal of Election Day registration (Maine), to

harsh rules requiring specific types of government-issued photo identification

to vote (in eleven states including Wisconsin and Tennessee). Florida even

cracked down on nonpartisan voter registration drives, forcing the League of

Women Voters to close down its operations. Throughout the 2012 election cycle, courts both state and federal, including both conservative and progressive

judges, blocked or blunted these measures.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court moved sharply in the other direction. In

one of the most radical departures from legal precedent in my lifetime, the Supreme Court decided in 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder that the Act had been so

effective in blocking discriminatory voting practices in the covered jurisdictions

identified by Section 4(b), that it was no longer fair to hold those places to a different standard. The majority found that the formulas determining these preclearance jurisdictions were outdated, even though Congress had renewed them

by overwhelming margins just seven years earlier.

Congress’ decision to extend the Voting Rights Act—including Sections 4

and 5—was based in part on the fact that more than 1,000 proposed voting

changes in covered areas were blocked as discriminatory between 1982 and

2006. Cases brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act were also more

than four times more likely to succeed in covered jurisdictions than in noncovered jurisdictions, suggesting that voters in these places with a history of discrimination needed continued special protections.

In her dissent in Shelby County v. Holder, Justice Ginsburg warned that

weakening the Voting Rights Act because it was working was “like throwing

away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” How right

she was.

384

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!!!