This Note will analyze the purpose and history of the VRA. It will analyze Congress' authority to enact legislation in the area of voting rights. Furthermore, this Note discusses the Court's decision in NAMUDO and Chief Justice Roberts' and Justice Thomas' contention that Section 5 was rendered obsolete by the lack of recent laws aimed at voter suppression. Additionally, this Note will discuss the various changes in voting procedures enacted between 2011 and 2012 while analyzing the effect changes may have on minority voter participation.  The Note will further examine Chief Justice Roberts' and Justice Thomas' arguments that voter suppression does not occur in modern day America. This Note will dispute that premise. Rather, evidence demonstrates that continued enforcement of Section 5 is necessary to prohibit states from denying minority citizens the ability to access the ballot box

Michael Ellement

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 drastically transformed the ability of African Americans to exercise their right to vote in the South. The most influential policy under the Act was Section Five. This section instituted a new system of review for voting procedure changes in states with a history of racial discrimination. States subject to this section of the Voting Rights Act must get preclearance by submitting any changes to their voting laws to the United States Department of Justice or to the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia. Any law not cleared will not go into effect. Section Five receives criticism as conflicting with values of federalism. Some opponents say the section is no longer necessary to ensure voter nondiscrimination. The Supreme Court of the United States took the challenge of determining the constitutionality of Section Five’s preclearance authority in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder. Ultimately, the Court did not address constitutionality and resolved the case on alternative grounds. However, the opinion and a dissent appeared to be in favor of finding the section unconstitutional. Many states have begun to change the requirements for voting. Some have changed the number of days allowed for early voting, the identification required to vote, and restrictions on voter registration organizations. Eventually the Supreme Court will likely need to confront the constitutionality of Section Five. However, the Court should remember voter suppression is alive and well today. The Supreme Court should affirm Congress’ authority to remedy state action aimed at hindering voter participation

Ellement, Michael

St Mary's University School of Law Digital Repository

The New Voter Suppression: Why the Voting Rights Act Still Matters.

St. Mary's University, San Antonio: St. Mary's Law Digital Repository

The New Voter Suppression: Why the Voting Rights Act Still Matters (Note)

Digital Commons at St. Mary's University, San Antonio

https://commons.stmarytx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1221&context=thescholar

The New Voter Suppression: Why the Voting Rights Act Still Matters (Note)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

St Mary's University School of Law Digital Repository

St. Mary's University, San Antonio: St. Mary's Law Digital Repository

Digital Commons at St. Mary's University, San Antonio