The following are answers to the most frequently asked questions about voting rights and relevant laws.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) protects every American against racial discrimination in voting. This law also protects the voting rights of many people who have limited English skills. It stands for the principle that everyone's vote is equal, and that neither race nor language should shut any of us out of the political process.
Congress passed the VRA in 1965, at the height of the civil rights movement in the South, a movement committed to securing equal voting rights for African Americans. The action came immediately after one of the most important events of that movement, a clash between black civil rights marchers and white police in Selma, Alabama. The marchers were starting a 50-mile walk to the state capital, Montgomery, to demand equal rights in voting, when police used violence to disperse them. What happened that day in Selma shocked the nation, and led President Johnson to call for immediate passage of a strong federal voting rights law.
The VRA bans all racial discrimination in voting. For years, many states had laws that served only to prevent minority citizens from voting. Some of these laws required people to take a reading test or interpret some passage out of the Constitution in order to vote, or required people registering to vote to bring someone already registered who would vouch for their "good character." The VRA made these and other discriminatory practices illegal, and gave private citizens the right to sue in federal court. Courts have applied the Act to end race discrimination in the method of electing state and local legislative bodies and in the choosing of poll officials.
No. The VRA is permanent law. Moreover, the equal right to vote regardless of race or color is protected by the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which has been part of our law since the end of the Civil War. Courts have held that the right to vote is fundamental. Voting rights will not expire, but there are changes over the years.
Most notably, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 4 of the Act is unconstitutional. That section determined which states needed to seek approval before enacting new voting laws. Since Section 5 outlines the actual requirement for preapproval, it is essentially inactive in light of the Court's ruling.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is in limbo, per the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling. Section 5 is a special provision of the statute that requires state and local governments in certain parts of the country to get federal approval (known as "preclearance") before implementing any changes they want to make in their voting procedures: anything from moving a polling place to changing district lines in the county. Since the formula used for determining which districts are subject to the rules outlined by Section 5 was ruled unconstitutional, Section 5 will have no actual effect unless Congress takes up the issue.
Under Section 5, a covered state, county, or local government entity has to demonstrate to federal authorities that the voting change in question: (1) does not have a racially discriminatory purpose; and (2) will not make minority voters worse off than they were prior to the change (i.e. the change will not be "retrogressive").
Prior to the Court ruling, Section 5 applied to all or parts of the following states (as determined by formula in Section 4, which is no longer part of the Act):
|
|
|
|
The VRA is not limited to discrimination that literally excludes minority voters from the polls. Section 2 of the Act makes it illegal for any state or local government to use election processes that are not equally open to minority voters, or that give minority voters less opportunity than other voters to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice to public office. Section 2 makes it illegal for state and local governments to "dilute" the votes of racial minority groups, that is, to have an election system that makes minority voters' votes less effective than those of other voters. One of many forms of minority vote dilution is the drawing of district lines that divide minority communities and keep them from putting enough votes together to elect representatives of their choice to public office. Depending on the circumstances, dilution can also result from at-large voting for governmental bodies. When coupled with a long-standing pattern of racial discrimination in the community, these and other election schemes can deny minority voters a fair chance to elect their preferred candidates.
To show vote dilution in these situations, there must be a geographically concentrated minority population and voting that is polarized by race, that is, a pattern in which minority voters and white voters tend to vote differently as groups. It must also be shown that white voters, by voting as a bloc against minority-choice candidates, usually beat those candidates even if minority voters are unified or cohesive at the polls.
Anyone aggrieved by minority vote dilution can bring a federal lawsuit to stop it. If the court decides that the effect of an election system, in combination with all the local circumstances, is to make minority votes less effective than white votes, it can order a change in the election system. For example, courts have ordered states and localities to adopt districting plans to replace at-large voting, or to redraw their election district lines in a way that gives minority voters the same opportunity as other voters to elect representatives of their choice.
No. Over 30 years ago the Supreme Court held that jurisdictions are free to draw majority-minority election districts that follow traditional, non-racial districting considerations, such as geographic compactness. Later Supreme Court decisions have held that drawing majority-minority districts may be required to ensure compliance with the VRA.
While it remains legally permissible for jurisdictions to take race into account when drawing election districts, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution requires a strong justification if racial considerations predominate over traditional districting principles. One such justification may be the need to remedy a violation of Section 2 of the VRA. While such a remedy may include election district boundaries that compromise traditional districting principles, such districts must be drawn where the Section 2 violation occurs and must not compromise traditional principles more than is necessary to remedy the violation.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 ( also known as the "motor voter" law) requires states to make voter registration opportunities available when people apply for or receive services at a variety of government agencies, from driver's license offices to social services agencies and public benefits offices. It also prohibits states from removing registered voters from the rolls unless certain criteria are met.
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act requires states to make sure that members of our armed forces who are stationed away from home, and citizens who are living overseas, can register and vote absentee in federal elections.
The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act requires polling places across the United States to be physically accessible to people with disabilities.
Yes and no. The VRA makes it illegal to discriminate in voting based on someone's membership in a language minority group, but its effect in the wake of the 2013 Supreme Court ruling remains to be seen. The idea behind the VRA's minority language provisions was to remove language as a barrier to political participation, and to prevent voting discrimination against people who speak minority languages.
Many jurisdictions with people of Hispanic, Native American, and Alaskan Native heritage were covered by Section 5 of the Act, prior to the 2013 Court ruling.
Section 5 of the VRA further protected minority language group members by requiring particular jurisdictions to print ballots and other election materials in the minority language as well as in English, and to have oral translation help available at the polls where the need exists. But the formulas for determining which jurisdictions must do this are no longer part of the law, rendering this and other Section 5 provisions ineffective until Congress provides a new formula.
As an American, you are entitled to certain fundamental voting rights. Interference with those rights should not be tolerated. Are you facing discrimination in voting? If you think that your voting rights have been violated in any way, then preserve your rights. Talk to an experienced attorney familiar with voter discrimination right away.
