190 likes | 337 Views
Suffrage and Civil Rights. Chapter 6 Section 3. Key Terms. Gerrymandering Injunction Preclearance. 15 th Amendment. The effort to extend franchise to African Americans Ratified 1870
E N D
Suffrage and Civil Rights Chapter 6 Section 3
Key Terms • Gerrymandering • Injunction • Preclearance
15th Amendment • The effort to extend franchise to African Americans • Ratified 1870 • Declares the right to vote can not be denied to any citizen because of “race, color, or previous servitude.”
History • African Americans were systematically kept from the polls • White supremacists used violence • Others used other types of pressure • If an African American registered to vote he could be denied credit in a store
Formal Methods • Literacy tests • Whites would manipulate the test to disenfranchise African Americans • Poll Taxes, White primaries, Gerrymandering also used • Gerrymandering- drawing electoral district lines in order to limit a voters strength or a particular party or group
Democratic Domination of the South • Only Democrats nominated candidates • In southern states political parties were private associations • They refused African Americans memberships
Court Rulings • Outlawed white primaries in 1944 • If party holds a primary they must follow the 15th Amendment • 1960 Supreme court outlawed gerrymandering that it violated the 15th amendment
Early Civil Rights • Led by martin Luther King in the late 1950’s • Acts of 1957 and 1960 • Civil Rights Act of 1957 • Created the Civil Rights Commission • 1957 Attorney General had power to investigate polling problems • Civil Rights Act of 1960 appointed federal referee’s
Civil Rights Act of 1964 • Outlawed discrimination in job related matters • Forbid literacy requirement • Injunction- is a court order that compels or restraining the performance of some act by a private individual or public official • Any violation would be contempt of court
Selma Alabama • Dr. King mounted a voter drive in 1965 • Efforts met with violence by local whites civilians, police and state police • Civil rights worker was murdered • Nation saw it on television and was outraged • President Johnson urged Congress to pass new and stronger legislation
Voting Rights Act • Voting Rights Act of 1965 made 15th amendment truly effective • It applied to all elections • Originally only suppose to last for five years. • Congress extended it 1970, 1975, 1982, 2006 • Present version effective for 25 years (2031) • 1965 law challenged constitutionality of poll tax, law suspended literacy test
Preclearance • Voting act of 1965 impose more restrictions • Preclearance- the act declared that no new election law, and no change in existing election laws could go into effect until they were pre-cleared.
The voter-examiner and Preclearance Provisions of 1965 applied to six entire states • Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia and 40 counties of North Carolina
Supreme Court found The Voting Rights Act to be a proper exercise of power granted by the 15th Amendment.
Amendments to the Act • 1970 extended the law for another 5 years • Provided for 5 years no state could use a literacy test • There were also residency provisions • 1975 Law extended for 7 years • Ban on literacy tests is permanent • Preclearance provisions and voter examiner were broadened
Since then they have also covered any state with a voting population that belongs to a “language minorities” • These groups include Spanish, Native Americans, Asians, Native Alaskans • This addition expanded laws coverage to Alaska, Texas and to several counties in 24 state • All ballots must be printed in English and the minority language involved
1982 extended the basic features for 25 years • 1992 the laws language was changed that it applied to any community with a minority-language population of 10,000 or more • Today eight entire states still remain subject to Voting Rights Act • Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas
Court Challenge • Utility District v Holder in 2009 • Small Texas Water District challenged the law • Argued many significant changes had happened in race relations and the law was no longer needed and unconstitutional • Court decided 6 – 1 because the water district had no history of race-based discrimination it was not subject to preclearance provisions
Clearly there will be more challenges to the act in the future