Speak Outs
Speak Out
Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 still relevant?

Feb. 22, 2013

By Jeremy Quattlebaum, Student Voices staff writer

1965 was a watershed year for the civil rights movement. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 became law, requiring many Southern states to remove legal barriers that kept minorities from voting.

Gone were poll taxes and literacy tests, and African Americans began turning out to vote in numbers never seen before. They still faced challenges when it came to voting in the Jim Crow South, but the Voting Rights Act was a crucial step in the civil rights movement.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires certain states, counties and districts with a history of racial discrimination to submit plans for redistricting or changes in voting laws and election procedures to the Justice Department. They must prove that the changes will not adversely affect minorities.

In the decades since, Section 5 has come under fire as unnecessary federal encroachment. Officials in Shelby County, Ala., decided to fight Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, declaring that the provision is unconstitutional. The county sued the Justice Department.

The Supreme Court will hear opening arguments on Feb. 27, 2013, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder.

Shelby County officials contend that Section 4b – a formula that determines which states are subjected to Section 5 – exceeds the authority of the 14th and 15th Amendments and that the provisions are in violation of the 10th Amendment and Article IV of the Constitution.

They say that Section 5 is outdated and that the districts in question have put their discriminatory history behind them. “The circumstances that warranted it in 1965 don’t exist anymore,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, which supports Shelby County’s arguments.

The State of Arizona filed an amicus curiae (which is Latin for a “friend of the court”) brief supporting Shelby County, stating that “Section 5 served a noble purpose, and America is a freer and better place for it. But Congress’s refusal to amend the statute… means that this Court is the last and only branch of federal government that can defend the State’s coequal sovereignty.”

Section 5 has its supporters.

“Some people want to put out of their minds something which is real, which is [that] discrimination is still going on,” Armand Derfner, who defended the Section 5 provision in Voting Rights Act before the Supreme Court in 1968, said in a Clarion-Ledger interview. “Yes, in many ways we have made progress… But we haven’t finished the job.” In Derfner’s case, Allen v. State Board of Elections, opponents of Section 5 contended that it applied only to voter registration. But the Supreme Court said it covered all election procedures. Since then, the Justice Department has reviewed thousands of requests for election-related changes.

Derfner said that Section 5 was, and continues to be, necessary to prevent voter discrimination from being established. “That was the old pattern; whenever Congress blocked some method of discriminating, the states came up with something new,” said Derfner, who plans to attend the Feb. 27 oral arguments at the Supreme Court. “Section 5 was designed to stay one step ahead of the states.”

Others argue that Section 5 is necessary for the growing populations of Latinos in states like Texas and Arizona. The Justice Department rejected Texas’ redistricting plans in 2003 because the government reasoned that the new districts carved up Latino areas, making it nearly impossible for them to form a significant voting bloc in the new districts.

Update, June 25, 2013: In a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court rejects as unconstitutional a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The provision, Section 4,  contains a formula for deciding which states must have federal approval before making changes in laws that affect voting, such as redrawing electoral districts. Section 5, which establishes the pre-clearance requirement, was not struck down since without Section 4 it is irrelevant. The Voting Rights Act was  most recently updated by Congress in 1975. The Court said that Congress used outdated data to identify states subject to federal oversight. Proponents of the law said it protected minority voting rights.

What do you think?

How should the Supreme Court rule in Shelby County v. Holder? Does Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act still matter, or is it a legacy of a bygone era? Is it unconstitutional? Does racial disenfranchisement still exist in America? Join the discussion and let us know what you think!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
5/1/2013
Irving/Tx
Kelsie
Bradley/Nimitz
Section 5 was a way to make us equal legally, but discrimination will always exist. Yes, the United States has came a long way, but there's always more that can be done. Section 5 is still in effect today and ensures that minority groups do have the right to vote and protects the equal rights of the citizens of the U.S.

4/22/2013
Irving/TX
Dennys A.
Bradley/Nimitz
Article 5 stands as a sign of equality ensuing the right individuals fought for in the struggle to promote equality and fairness, thus i believe it is in no way unconstitutional. Redistricting could help in providing more vote and input from minorities but there will always be some form of racial discrimination so we can only ease the wounds that drove our fellow man in the past and look towards a brighter future.

4/21/2013
Irving/TX
but nguyen
Bradley/Nimitz
As long as we all can form our own opinions, there will always be discrimination in this world. Section 5 was a huge leap for us to reach equality, but we will never get there unless we are all actually equal in measures. The Supreme Court should rule with the Shelby County as long as there isn't any trace of discrimination, and if they live up to what they claimed to have put their discriminatory history behind them. Our country is always changing, so our constitution has to change with it. Section 5 can longer fit to today’s circumstances and is in need of a change or removal.

4/15/2013
Irving/Texas
Zachery
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe racial disenfranchisement still exists in America to this day. Yes, it has gotten a lot better since racial discrimination began, but it is still a problem in some areas. I believe the the supreme court should rule to redistrict certain areas of the country, but only to make it equal for every race to have an equal chance at being represented. Section 5 is no way unconstitutional and should definitely stay because it offers the ability to keep things fair for everyone and without it things just may turn out for the worst in some places.

4/11/2013
Benson/AZ
Kady
Sorensen/Benson
I think there will always be discrimination in the world. Some people never change. As a country as a whole, yes I think we have moved on. But sure, Article 5 stands as a verification for equality and a reminder of what people have fought for in the past.

4/3/2013
Benson
Haley
Sorensen
I think that its a good idea to wait for people to vote till their 18 because that is when they become more like adults and can make better decisions then the younger mind set they had.

4/3/2013
Norman/OK
Debora
Woodard/MNTC
For being just straight forward, discrimination WILL NEVER END. No matter how people dance around with tye dye shirts screaming LOVE everywhere does not change the fact that racism will be here. Its been here for a a really long time and still to go. People has speaked up for racism but eventually got killed for speaking the truth. People are not ready to get the truth rubbed in their faces. Everyone has different thoughts and expressions. Never going to go away especially if United States is a melting pot of different cultures.

3/25/2013
Irving/TX
Quynh
Bradley/Nimitz
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Shelby County v. Holder, a case concerning the constitutionality of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a landmark law that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that disenfranchised African-Americans. Nevertheless, some argue today that we should move “beyond” the need for Section 5 because of the election of President Obama. They could not be more wrong. Section 5 has been and remains a vital checkpoint against those who would deliberately or inadvertently deny access to the ballot for duly registered voters. Felony disenfranchisement is the practice of prohibiting people from voting (known as disenfranchisement) based on the fact that they have been convicted of a felony or any other kind of criminal offense. Opponents have argued that it restricts and conflicts with principles of universal suffrage

3/25/2013
Irving/TX
Kelly
Bradley/Nimitz
There will always be discrimination throughtout the United States no matter what. That's why Section 5 of the Voting Rights is a good way to keep everyone equal. I feel like if some states have to submit plans to the Justice Department, then all states and countries should have to do it as well. Yes we've made progress, but there are still changes to be made. Which is why Section 5 is not unconstitutional and should stay until they feel it's unessassary.

3/22/2013
Irving, TX
TJ Wright
Bradley/ Nimitz High School
Section 5 gives our government a safe blanket to fall on when in comes to discrimination. Whether there is still sorts of discrimination or not in or government we still need it there. It shows there is no way for any unfairness to slip through and make way into our governing system and our decisions for this country. If there is a history of this happening within our states then there is always a chance it could happen again.

3/21/2013
Irving/TX
Gabe
Bradley/Nimitz
In our federal system, our national government is supposed to have be the highest power, but often times, states bend the rules and do what they want and try to fly under the radar of the national governments rule. Defner has a point in saying "Whenever Congress blocked some method of discriminating, the states came up with something new,” because there is a history of it happening. The national government was able to be one step ahead of the states and we avoided a long drawn out period of even more discrimination. Racial disenfranchisement still exists, today but Section 5 was able to greatly reduce its reign, and because it still exists, Section 5 is still needed.

3/21/2013
Irving/Tx
Joshua B
Bradley/Nimitz
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still relevent because African Amaericans can still vote. Women can still vote. So yes the voting rights act is still relevent.

3/20/2013
Denver/Colorado
Areianna M.
Mumby/Kennedy
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still extremely relevant, to all the people of America. The people in this nation have fought long and hard to earn the righteous freedom to vote. Not only does it positively separate our country from others,(people in countries like Morocco, Bhutan, and Jordan don't have rights to vote.), the right to vote is somewhat like life, liberty, and property to our nation. African Americans have gone through so many hardships, prison, lynching, boycotting, simply to earn their civil rights. The Voting Rights Act WAS a crucial step for the civil rights movement even thought the southern states violated it. The right is still relevant, especially because mankind had struggled with it, and still struggle with racism today. So, yes, this right is still relevant, especially to me.

3/12/2013
Washginton/New Jersey
Alex H.
Roksony/Warren Hills Regional High School
Lyndon B. Johnson described the issue of racism in this nation not as a Southern problem, or a Northern problem, but as an American problem. I would take his eloquent description a step further and argue that racism is a human problem. And so long as this nation is populated by humans, subject to the unfortunate whims of irrational hate, the Voting Rights Act will remain relevant in its entirety. Section 5 of the act is not designed to discriminate without basis against certain states, nor is it meant to circumvent state powers without reason. The historical context of racism in certain states is undeniable; in Shelby County, there have been allegations of racist voting policies as recently as 2012. The issue of racism is pervasive, and constant vigilance is the price we pay for our past sins. To remove Section 5 is to cripple the Voting Rights Act, and to send a message to the modern minorities of the nation that they are no longer safe. The Voting Rights Act has become the cornerstone of civil rights legislation in this nation. It is the legacy not of a bygone era, but an era of progressive legislation and humanistic understanding. To deny it is to deny the unfortunate history of our nation. We have striven for over two centuries to guarantee the enfranchisement of our people; to side with Shelby Count would be a colossal misstep in the wrong direction.

3/12/2013
Washington/NJ
Celeste
Rokosny
I believe that the Voting Rights Act is still relevant, especially in regards to Section 5. Racial discrimination has always been a piece of human nature. We fear those who are different than us and want to limit their reach. In 1965 it was African Americans, today it is the Arabic. All states should have to submit any changes to voting laws to the federal government. Though we all have the best intentions, we can often be short sighted.

3/12/2013
Washington/New Jersey
Tom
Mrs. Rokosny/Warren Hills Regional High School
It is ridiculous to even question the voting rights act at this point considering that anyone that would want it gone would most definitely not have racial equality in mind. There is no reason to question the act, and the case should be immediately thrown out. To even consider it would be an injustice in and of itself.

3/12/2013
NJ
Dan G.
The Best School (Warren HIlls)
My opinion? You're asking my opinion? I'm not the brightest bulb in the ceiling but ill try my best! Well for starters I really believe that everyone should take a test an depending how well you do determines how many votes you get. For example you get 10 votes for a 100%, 9 for 90% and so on. but you can only get as low as a 10%. That way every on gets to vote!

3/12/2013
Austin, Texas
John
Dougal
I mean, no one here is contending that bestiality is 100% okay. I get that. But what I'm saying here is, who are we to pass judgements on the preferences of others? I certainly don't advocate bestiality, but neither have I ever tried it, so how can I really knock it, you know?

3/12/2013
Washington
Philipe
Warren Hills
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 serves the purpose to protect all Americans' right to vote. Regardless of how the country has progressed into overcoming bigotry and racist ideals, the Act and the law it establishes still stands to prevent people from going back to the country's past discriminatory ways.

3/12/2013
Washington/NJ
Jamie
Rokosny/WHHS
The Voting Rights Act is still very relevant because it protects our right to vote. Without it, it will be possible for poll taxes, literacy tests, and discrimination to come about again. Also during today's times, minorities are not completely treated equally to the typical white Christian male. Women and minorities still make less money and are less likely to have management positions in business. Until we can be assured that all people are given equal opportunity, we need to keep the Voting Rights Act intact.

3/12/2013
New Jersey
Sarah
WHRHS
The right to vote is guaranteed to all citizens in the Constitution. I don't any state has the right to take that away.

3/12/2013
Washington, NJ
Nancy
Mrs. Rokosny
All past laws come into effect when it is necessary for them to come into effect. This talk of administering some sort of a test for people to vote makes the Voting Rights Act relevant. The fact that the liberties guaranteed under this act are being threatened makes its content and purpose more relevant than ever.

3/8/2013
Irving/Texas
April K.
Bradley/Nimitz
Although it is true that racism is not as bad as it use to be, racism still exists. It is human nature for people to judge and a lot of people will first judge others by their race. This is why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act still matters. It ensures that no racial disenfranchisement could happen. It protects the equality of citizens. In the Shelby v. Holder case, the Supreme Court should rule that Section 5 is not unconstitutional by exceeding authority of the 14th and 15th amendment, but that Section 5 is still necessary in our prejudice world.

3/8/2013
Benson/ AZ
Jordan
Mr. Sorensen
It is very important for the act to still be relevent. If the act is not still in use the government would not get the votes that sre needed ant the voting numbers will drastically go down.

3/8/2013
Benson/AZ
Kaelin L.
Marv Sorensen
I think that it is important that our voting rights be protected. Minorities should be allowed to vote all the time. without them things would not be like they are now.

3/7/2013
Benson, AZ
Richard R.
Marv Sorensen/Benson High School
The Voting Rights Act is still relevant to this day. It provides for the protection of our right to vote, not just for minorities, but for any one. Whose to say the majority today won't be the minority tomorrow, the Act exists as a legal protection of the 14th and 15th amendments. Racial discrimination is still present in our nation as well. Though our focus has shifted from blacks to other minorities, that is to say racial discrimination against blacks has not completely disappeared, the same principles out lined in the Voting Rights Act protect against any one whose voting rights may be oppressed.

3/6/2013
Benson, AZ
Kasey
Sorenson/Benson
voting rights deserve to be protected. prople have the right to vote and help change the country

3/4/2013
Benson/AZ
Joe
Sorenson/Benson
I believe that it is important that voting rights are protected however we can't allow them minority groups to get too many rights and have some sort of an uprising against the white man. I'm fine with whatever sort of rights they do get just so long as they know their place in society.

3/4/2013
AZ
Derek
SorensonBenson
I think that voting is an important right that needs to be protected. we dont have too much discrimination now days however there is still some so it might have some relevance someday.

3/1/2013
Benson/AZ
Krystal
Sorensen/Benson High School
I agree that Section 5 is still very important as well as necessary. We have come a long way when it comes to the topic of discrimination. However I still think we have a long way to go. It would be a good idea for Section 5 to remain because then no one will even be tempted to try and find a way "around the system" so to speak.

3/1/2013
Benson
Morgan
Sorenson
This act should not be revoked because it is still very relevent. Minorities should be allowed to vote all the time and if this act is taken away that will most likely change. Racisim is still very existant in America and if this act is repealed then it will be cause for only more racism that will keep minorities from voting.

3/1/2013
Irving/Texas
Leslie
Bradley /Nimitz
Discrimination is a subject that will always be in this world. Theirs many people that still can't learn that discrimination is a bad thing. Section 5 should still be implemented in order to lower the discrimination that could happen when voting. Citizens should have their rights secured because it doesn’t matter who you are color, race, woman or, a man. Every one is a human being with the same rights. Having a back up rule can help many people now and in the future with discrimination. The judges should have in consideration the era we are.

3/1/2013
Irving/Tx
Kelly
Bradley/Nimitz
The Voting Rights Act should not be relevant anymore. That was along time ago, and things/people have changed. Yes, there is still racism in the world. However, it's not in certain states, it's everywhere, an that's never going to change. But I don't think that should mean the Voting Rights Act should stay, that is in the past.

3/1/2013
Irving/Texas
Delaney
Bradley/ Nimtiz
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Acts is still necessary because there is still discrimination in America even though it may not be as prevalent as it was 50 years ago. The Act protects the rights of citizens to vote no matter their race or discriminatory factor, and is a part of our history. Other acts an laws have been outdated and are still a part of the legacy. The Voting Rights Act is not hurting or harming any one so it shouldn't have to be done away with.

3/1/2013
Benson/ AZ
Rhiannon
Benson/Sorenson
Voting is a right, so being taxed on something that should come as a free institusion should stay that way.

3/1/2013
AZ
Emily
Benson
People are still racist in this country and there will always be people who are so no matter what era it is that law will still be in effect.

3/1/2013
Benson AZ
Allison
Benson High School/ Mr. Sorenson
Yes, the Voting Rights Act is still very relevant. Many of our politicians are white, old, and with the mindset of trying to prevent minorities to vote. If this Act was revoked, then acts might be taken that prevent certain people from voting. If the law was removed, there would be a large increase in local government's power.This law should stay, to ensure all citizens the right to vote.

3/1/2013
Benson/Arizona
Shawn
Mr. Sorenson/Benson High School
Yes, I do believe that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still relavant. Because even though it is law, prejudicial and racial ideologies are still prominent in our country. Having an act to enforce equal rights between everyone of every type of race is necessary. Specifically to ensure the rights of minorities, and to keep them safe from being victimized and being prevented from voting.

3/1/2013
Benson, AZ
Evan.
Benson High
Racial Discrimination and Prejudice is still and for the most part will always be a problem in the United States wither its in a larger city or exclude to the rural areas. People have a natural tendency to stereotype/judge others so just to be safe to make sure that the electoral systems stays fair i believe the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still relevant and should be left enforced.

3/1/2013
Benson ,Arizona
Jacob
Sorenson / Benson High School
This act is for sure not still relavent ,Obama is our president that would be crazy if you disagreed with this. If it was there would be no way in hec that he would of gottan realected ,Think about it people.

3/1/2013
Benson, AZ
kayla
sorenson
i believe this law should still be in use, there is still world wide discrimination and will always be there. our laws help people to do right.

3/1/2013
benson az
Andrew
mr.sorenson benson high school
I believe it is, because there are still people eho try to stop others from voting. For example on reservations people today still try to trick each other on who to vote for. if you remove the act then over time people will start to do what they use too, and we'll have to start this all over again.

3/1/2013
Benson, AZ
Sabrina
Sorencen/ Benson High
I think yes because their still are people who are racist toward others and without this people would tell others weather they can vote or not.

3/1/2013
Benson/AZ
David
Marv Sorenson/Benson High School
Yes, this act is still relevant because there are still places where intimidation is used in order to keep a certain person or certain persons from voting and using their rights to help in deciding who will be representing their country and rights.

3/1/2013
Irving/ Tx
Samantha S
Bradley/ Nimitz
As Americans when racism or discrimination is in action, we have the right and the willingness to act upon it. As americanswe also have the right to vote, and when this is denied to certain people because of their race, in our country it just doesn't fly. The Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act still to this day matters significantly. While racism is something of the past, we would like to make sure it stays that way through out our generations. No matter where in our country, meaning from any state, this laws need to me enforced.

2/28/2013
Irving/Tx
Adrian
Bradley/Nimitz
It is certain that there is still racial disenfranchisement in America. The rejection of Texas' redistricting plans in 2003 is proof of that. The Supreme Court wouldn't have to look into cases like this one if it wasn't still around. As much as everyone wants section 5 to be in the past, it is not a possibility right now and may not ever be. It still matters today just as it did when it was ratified even though the racial disenfranchisement isn't as drastic as it used to be. As far as the Shelby County v. Holder case goes, the Supreme Court should make the decision to keep section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The accusations that it violates the 14th and 15th amendments are invalid. Citizenship and the right to vote are not being jeopardized by section 5. Section 5 is trying to keep states from segregating anyone in the voting districts.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Alan
Bradley/Nimitz
The Voting Act of 1965 is still relevant, racism still has not died off as many had hoped. 1965 was 48 years ago, and the majority of the people making out Congress and the House of Representatives are old, white men who are probably older than 48. They grew up during this time, and might still have some sort of hate towards minorities. Section 5 should be applied to the whole country, not just some states, to make sure than nobody is discriminated against. Another 50 years should pass before they consider getting rid of it for good.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Giancarlo
Bradley/Nimitz
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act still matters because discrimination and racism will always exist. No matter how hard America has tried, citizens don't like one another due to stereotypes and other factors. By keeping this act, the government can ensure that every person in a state is treated equally and that no state is being discriminatory. Even though much time has passed, this racial issue is a scar on America. Protecting the inhabitants of a state should be the priority of the federal government. If this law is taken away, what's guarantees that a state will not discriminate?

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Grace
Bradley/Nimitz
People in this world are very fickle. They can change their minds from one thing to another in a matter of seconds. The Supreme Court should go against Shelby County because they obviously don't realize the human nature. They said that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was no longer needed because conditions now are better than what they used to be. What they don't realize is that once the Voting Rights Act is removed, people can always go back to the way things were. That's life. Life is unpredictable. An individual being is unpredictable. All over the world racial discrimination exists and can be seen throughout the different countries of the world. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has made a huge impact in our society that has brought us here today. Why would we want to get rid of something that has helped shape our country in a magnificent way? The Voting Rights Act of 1965 should stay and should be something that people look up too.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Elyssa
Bradley/Nimitz
We want to believe that racism is no more but the truth is that its still around. We need the voting rights of 1965 to ensure inalienable rights of every citizen. Although many may not see racism as an everyday thing, not only against blacks or Latinos but also transgenders and gays, they still need to be treated fair in voting as well as their own rights. Section 5 is applied to today's society because we are mixed country with different cultures that need the same protection as generations before. Voting rights were made to protect the minority and taking this away also takes their rights away. Latino's are an increasing population and the absence of this right could affect not only them but the political world also. Taking away the rights of the people that come to this country for a better life and work hard to stay in this country will hurt the economy. For a better standing economy and country we need to ensure the rights of every citizen no matter what color, race, or religion.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Cody
Bradley/Nimitz
The Voting Rights Act is very relevant still. Like Wesley said, many of our politicians are: white, old, and with the mindset of trying to prevent minorities to vote. If this Act was revoked, then some southern counties might find ways to prevent certain people from voting. They could issue out a literacy test or a property ownership. Counties know how to go around the federal government and still be in the law. So if the law was removed, there would be a large increase in local governments doing this. There are still many people who are racist and wish things would go back, and many that are still in power in local governments. So this law needs to remain to enforce all governments to allow anyone to vote.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Tasia
Ms.Bradley/Nimitz HS
As much as we really think that racisim is in the past it's really not. I feel that there is still racial disenfranchisement in America but people try to hide it and make it sound like something diffrent. For the most part states are over the way and where their state votes as long as it doesn't violate the actual voting rights act. I think that we should keep the voting rights act and, in my opinion location is everything. Yes voters may have a long process and things of that nature but, when you move the location of where voters go your taking away from the voters in that area that go there to vote and many other reasons.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Maddie
Bradley/Nimitzz
The Supreme Court should rule that Section 5 does not violate anything and that it is still necessary. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act still matters today. Discrimination is still a lingering problem that hasn't just disappeared. Here in Texas we still have issues with Latinos and their rights. Although, all races go to school together and use the same water fountains, people still find ways to discriminate-especially with Latinos.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Jessica W.
Bradley/Nimitz
The courts should rule in favor of keeping section 5 because even though people say that they are over racism they really are not. We still have the problem of racism through out America. People still are very judgmental based on race and still have prejudices. They might not voice them out loud but it is still there. The Voting Rights Act should be kept to ensure that there is not any problems arising because of racism, and to protect citizens from future issues.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Samantha N. S.
Bradley/Nimitz
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is a provision that requires action only when it is needed, and only when minorities are being discriminated against when voting- which is something every American has the right to do. Racism is part of our past, sadly, and we need to ensure that it neither part of our present, nor part of our future., and an act that ensures that is one that should be kept. Every state should be held to the Voting Rights Act because every race in every state should be protected from racial disenfranchisement, not just in the ones in a state with a racist past- racial discrimination can happen anywhere.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Darian
Bradley/Nimitz
A lot of people would like to think that our world is perfect now for all people. Well they need to wake up from that dream they are having and get back to the real world. Racism will never die it still lives on in many people in our society today. By getting rid of the Section 5 of the Voting rights would be like letting a ravage dog out of its cage. The minorities would be taking advantage of. This will make America where only the strong survive and the weak perish.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Wesley
Bradley/Nimitz
Although we have taken giant steps towards equal rights, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may in fact still be relevant. You have to take note that 1965 is only 48 years ago. Many of our politicians are 48 and older and as a result, grew up in times where civil rights was the primary social conflict. Thus, many of our current politicians grew up in an environment, in a family, that was quite possibly against rights for blacks. Although we don't see racism as much, our political leaders are all mostly white , mostly old, and mostly not up to date with modern society. With that said, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still very relevant because are government is made up of leaders that still may have discriminatory beliefs. Now, the case Shelby County v. Holder does in fact exceed the authority of the Constitution because it singles out certain states with a history of racism. This mere fact of picking on historically racist states is discriminatory in itself. Instead, section 5 should be applied to all states until we see a a generation of politicians that are truly diverse and modern in their belief systems and thinking. This turn of politicians is just around the corner, but we need to keep the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to ensure that all traces of racism are forever eradicated from American ideology.

2/28/2013
Benson/AZ
Dylan L
Sorensen/Benson
I do not see that the voting right of 1965 is not relevant. We have a black president now and I think that is enough to say that this act is long gone in the past. It would have not been possible if it was still relevent.

2/27/2013
Irviing/TX
Alexis
Bradley/Nimitz
As much as we would lik racism to remain in the past, the sad fact is that racism is still alive in society today. With that beinng said, I believe the Voting Right Act is in fact relevant. By preserving the Voting Rights Act, Section 5 no state with any history of racial discrimination would be able to create voting policies that would harm any minority group from being able to vote freely. The consttution ensure's every citizen has the right to vote without discrimination, by eliminating the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it leaves many states vulnerable to discrimination and harm for those who are considered apart of a minority. If anything this act should be spread across the nation to all states.

2/27/2013
Benson/Arizona
Brandon
Sorensen/Benson
If you are a citizen of the United States then you have the right to vote. This should be protected and any law protecting the right to vote shouldn't be removed. However the laws shouldn't only pick on a few states because of there history. They should be enforced in all states or removed completely.

2/26/2013
Irving/Texas
Yessica
Bradley/Nimitz
In the Voting Rights Act, provision 5 should still be followed and attained, because there will always be racism in someone's eyes. Therefore the government should be informed when a state plans to implement different laws in voting, because it can check up and be assured that there is no discrimination being added. The fact that we have passed through so much time does not assure us that there is no racism in the world. Protecting citizens from the state or federal government should always be protected.

2/26/2013
Irving/Texas
Helen
Bradley/Nimitz
As much as I would like to say that racism is a thing of the past the truth is that many communities still need the laws that protect their personal rights like the voting right act of 1965. With an increase in policies throughout the states that discriminate against the Latino community and other minorities the voting rights act of 1965 is not irrelevant but a necessity. Political factions like the Republicans who would benefit from diminishing the power of the minority vote cannot have their way. Our constitution and laws are set up to protect our rights and one of the biggest privileges that we have as citizens is the right to vote. Rather than eliminating the voting act we should ensure that it is enforced throughout the whole nation, not just in particular states.

2/26/2013
Irving, Texas
TImothy Betts
Nimitz/Bradley
The fact that there are states fighting against this provision is proof in itself that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still a necessity in the racist south. Recently in Texas there have been huge concerns over redistricting and other laws. There is evidence in the article presented that shows that in the state of Texas, my home state, there is still a living racism. In a state where people fantasize about cowboys and Dallas Cowboys, the beast of racism is still a threat to the rights of the minorities. This is evidenced by the 2003 redistricting plans that would have divided up a Latino population allowing a white majority to dictate more than their fair share of the vote. However obvious I think the Shelby County v. Holder decision should be, I feel that it is necessary to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965's section 4B should be denounced and have all states subject to section five of the act. There is voter disenfranchisement everywhere. Though there is a history of discrimination in the south, racism is rampant elsewhere as well. Extending the section five provision to all states would better serve the populous and ensure that the results of elections are just and fair. In an age where a Republican party is attempting to exclude a large section of the population through voter identification laws, the judicial branch should always have a hand in blocking and denying legislation that would further impact the electoral process. The judicial process is not a hindrance on electoral procedures, it is a stamp of approval that the majority party of a certain legislature is not attempting to fix the results of the next election. The judicial branch—being exempt from election—is the only branch capable of providing for fair election procedures.

2/26/2013
Irving/Texas
Misael
Bradley/Nimitz
The Supreme Court should uphold section 5 of the Voting Rights act of 1965 today as it did back then. Texas rejected redistricting plan is a clear example as to why it is still relevant. Of course human rights and equalities of races has greatly improved yet racial disenfranchisement still exists today even if it much less prevalent than in its hey days. Because of that fact section 5 should be upheld until racism is entirely erradicated.

2/26/2013
Irving/Texas
April S.
Bradley/Nimitz
The courts should rule to keep Section 5. Section 5 still matters because not all people are over racism. There are still racists people, and we need to make sure that colored people are protected. If we give people the freedom of not having Section 5 over their heads, then they may take the new revision as a way of being given the right to become or strengthen their racism. Voting should be protected because it is a privilege that all Americans should have due to the fact that we all have to live here, so we need to make sure we have elected officials that the majority agree on.

Related News
Related Resources
Share