briefpedia.org
Articles/Voting Rights Act of 1965: History, Provisions, and Legal Impact
Voting Rights Act of 1965VRAFifteenth AmendmentLyndon B. Johnsonpreclearance

Voting Rights Act of 1965: History, Provisions, and Legal Impact

Voting Rights Act of 1965 The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) is a landmark piece of federal legislation designed to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, whi...

Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) is a landmark piece of federal legislation designed to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits the federal government and states from denying a citizen the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Enacted during a period of intense civil rights activism, the act sought to dismantle systemic barriers that prevented African Americans and other minorities from exercising their democratic rights.

The road to the VRA was marked by significant struggle and public outcry. Events such as the "Bloody Sunday" attack on voting rights marchers in Selma, Alabama, highlighted the violent resistance to racial equality and galvanized national support for federal intervention in election administration.

refer to caption
Alabama police in 1965 attack voting rights marchers on "Bloody Sunday", the first of the Selma to Montgomery marches.

Key Facts

Fannie Lou Hamer is a Black woman wearing a floral dress. She is mid-speaking at a convention. She is seated. The photo is in black and white.
Fannie Lou Hamer, founder of Freedom Farm Cooperative, speaks on behalf of SNCC regarding African-American rights to vote.
  • Effective Date: August 7, 1965.
  • Signed By: President Lyndon B. Johnson.
  • Primary Purpose: To enforce the Fifteenth Amendment and eliminate discriminatory voting practices.
  • Key Mechanism: Established "preclearance" for jurisdictions with a history of discrimination.
  • Major Legal Shift: The 2013 Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder declared the coverage formula unconstitutional.

Legislative History

refer to caption
The first page of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

The act was introduced in the Senate as S. 1964 by Mike Mansfield (D-MT) on March 17, 1965. It moved through the legislative process with significant bipartisan support, reflecting a national consensus on the need to end racial disenfranchisement.

The Senate passed the bill on May 26, 1965, with a vote of 77–19. The House of Representatives passed it with amendments on July 9, 1965, by a vote of 333–85. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the act into law on August 6, 1965, alongside prominent civil rights leaders.

refer to caption
United States President Lyndon B. Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., Clarence Mitchell Jr., Patricia Roberts Harris, and other guests at the signing of the Voting Rights Act on August 6, 1965[49]

Legislative Breakdown

The voting patterns in both chambers demonstrated a strong mandate for the legislation, as shown in the party breakdowns of the time.

The vote breakdown in the US Senate by party of The Voting Rights Act of 1965
The vote breakdown in the US Senate by party of The Voting Rights Act of 1965
The vote breakdown in the US House by party of The Voting Rights Act of 1965
The vote breakdown in the US House by party of The Voting Rights Act of 1965

Core Provisions and Mechanisms

refer to caption
Final page of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson, President of the Senate Hubert Humphrey, and Speaker of the House John McCormack

The VRA introduced several powerful tools to ensure fair access to the ballot. At its core, it established a general prohibition against any voting law that results in discrimination.

The Coverage Formula and Preclearance

One of the most significant features was the coverage formula. This formula identified specific states and counties with a history of discriminatory tests or devices. These jurisdictions were subject to preclearance, meaning they could not change their voting laws without prior approval from the U.S. Attorney General or a federal court to ensure the changes were not discriminatory.

Map depicting states and counties encompassed by the act's coverage formula in January 2008 (excluding bailed-out jurisdictions)
States and counties encompassed by the act's coverage formula in January 2008 (excluding bailed-out jurisdictions). Several counties subsequently bailed out,[63] but the majority of the map accurately depicts covered jurisdictions before the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which declared the coverage formula unconstitutional.

Federal Oversight

To provide immediate relief, the act allowed for the appointment of federal examiners and observers to monitor registration and election processes, ensuring that eligible voters were not intimidated or illegally turned away.

Bilingual Election Requirements

Recognizing that language can be a barrier to voting, the act included provisions for bilingual election materials. These requirements apply when a single language minority group has an English-illiteracy rate higher than the national average and comprises a significant portion of the population.

Amendments and Evolution

The VRA was not a static document; it was updated several times to address emerging challenges and expand protections:

  • 1970 Amendments: Extended several provisions of the act.
  • 1975 Amendments: Expanded the act to protect language minorities.
  • 1982 Amendments: Strengthened the "results test" for proving discrimination.
  • 1992 Language Assistance Act: Further refined bilingual requirements.
  • 2006 Amendments: Signed by President George W. Bush to reauthorize and strengthen the act.
refer to caption
United States President George W. Bush signs amendments to the act in July 2006.

Legal Impact and Constitutionality

The VRA has been the subject of numerous Supreme Court cases. While early rulings like South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966) upheld its constitutionality, later decisions have narrowed its scope.

The most pivotal recent ruling was Shelby County v. Holder (2013), in which the Supreme Court declared the coverage formula used for preclearance unconstitutional. This decision effectively ended the preclearance requirement for most jurisdictions, shifting the burden of proof back to those challenging discriminatory laws.

Racial Gerrymandering

The act has also been central to cases regarding racial gerrymandering—the practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to dilute the voting power of racial minorities. Cases such as Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) and Shaw v. Reno (1993) have shaped how the courts evaluate the legality of district maps.

Summary of the Voting Rights Act

Overview of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Feature Details
Public Law Pub. L. 89–110
Codification Title 52—Voting and Elections
Key Mechanism Preclearance (Section 5)
Key Formula Coverage Formula (Section 4)
Major Court Case Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
Related Laws Civil Rights Act of 1964, NVRA (1993), HAVA (2002)

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the primary goal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

The primary goal was to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment by outlawing discriminatory voting practices, such as literacy tests, that were used to prevent racial minorities from voting.

What is "preclearance"?

Preclearance was a requirement that certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination obtain federal approval before changing any voting laws to ensure the changes would not have a discriminatory effect.

How did Shelby County v. Holder change the VRA?

The Supreme Court ruled that the formula used to determine which jurisdictions were subject to preclearance was unconstitutional, effectively stopping the preclearance process.

Who signed the Voting Rights Act into law?

The act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on August 6, 1965.

Does the VRA protect non-English speakers?

Yes, through the Voting Rights Language Assistance Act of 1992 and earlier amendments, the VRA requires bilingual election materials in areas with significant language-minority populations.

References

  1. In Gingles, the Supreme Court held that the Gingles test applies to claims that an at-large election scheme results in vote dilution. The court later held, in Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25 (1993), that the Gingles test also applies to claims that a redistricting plan results in vote dilution through the arrangement of single-member districts.[109]: 1006
  2. The Courts of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit,[114] Eleventh Circuit,[115] and Ninth Circuit[116] have either explicitly held that coalition suits are allowed under Section 2 or assumed that such suits are permissible, while those in the Sixth Circuit[117] and Seventh Circuit[118] have rejected such suits.[34]: 703
  3. Courts of Appeals in the Second Circuit[121] and Fourth Circuit[122] have held that such proof is not an absolute requirement for liability but is a relevant additional factor under the "totality of the circumstances" test. In contrast, the Fifth Circuit has held that such proof is a required component of the third precondition.[34]: 711–712 [123]
  4. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that challenges to majority-vote requirements under Section 2 are not cognizable,[127] while the Eastern District of Arkansas held the opposite.[34]: 752–753 [128]
  5. The Supreme Court subsequently held that plaintiffs may alternatively bring Section 5 enforcement actions in state courts.[31] : 534 [150]

Continue reading

Related articles

Universal Manhood Suffrage: The Evolution of Male Voting RightsDisfranchisement in the Post-Reconstruction American SouthThurgood Marshall: The Architect of Civil Rights and First Black Supreme Court JusticeCivil Rights Movement: The Struggle for Racial Equality in America