THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT: 1965 AND 2013

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 continued to be questioned in courts across the country during the end of the 20th century but the Supreme Court’s ruling in a 2013 case made a permanent change to the act’s effectiveness. 

The Voting Rights Act, which was passed by congress in 1965, granted voter protection and solidified the voting right of millions of American citizens. However, even though the law changed, voters were still discriminated against. Politicians just become more careful with how they accomplished the discrimination. To do this day, states and even the federal government continue to find ways to disenfranchise voters across the country. 

The Voting Rights Act, which was signed into law during the height of the Civil Rights Movement by President Lyndon B. Johnson, continues to be one of the most successful pieces of civil rights legislation. This is because of both its individualized approach, with sections applying to certain jurisdictions, and its an all-encompassing approach protecting votes in a wide variety of situations. 

Section two, of the Voting Rights Act, describes the general provisions and laws, aiming to outlaw any discrimination at the poll. This section eliminated poll taxes, which affected almost every minority voter. Section five describes the relationship between the states, their attorney generals, and the federal government during elections. Under this section, counties and states were required to report any changes to the election proceedings. The fifth section talks about the coverage formula, which gives additional provisions to counties that had previously had issues of voter suppression. The Voting Rights Act was able to successfully solidify voter protection for many Americans and while the Supreme Court tried cases that questioned the validity of the case, it held strong until 2013. 

In 2013,  the court ruled, in the landmark case Shelby County v. Holder, to strike down section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which held the list of covered counties. The court ruling, in turn, made section 5 unenforceable, freeing several “hotspot” counties from more restrictions and procedures. After the 2013 ruling, states were no longer required to give advance notice of changes to election procedures. This includes the location of polling places, election voter ID laws, and general election procedures. 

Shelby’s ruling has had major repercussions on the accessibility of polling places, as well as election information. A study conducted published by the American Politics Journal, reported that countries that had previously been covered under section 4(b) had much higher rates of voter purges, which is the process of “cleaning up” the voter rolls by getting rid of names on the registration list, in the elections after the 2013 decision. Thus, the 2013 ruling allowed for voters to be erased from the registration list making it more difficult for them to cast their ballot.