The U.S. Congress enacted major amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, and 2006. Each of these amendments coincided with an impending expiration of some of the Act's special provisions, which originally were set to expire by 1970. However, in recognition of the voting discrimination that continued despite the Act, Congress repeatedly amended the Act to reauthorize the special provisions.[1]:6–8[2]:209–210
In each of these amendments except for the 1992 amendments, Congress extended the special provisions that were tied to the coverage formula, such as the preclearance requirement. These provisions were extended for five years in 1970, seven years in 1975, and 25 years in both 1982 and 2006. In 1970 and 1975, Congress also expanded the coverage formula, supplementing it with new 1968 and 1972 trigger dates. Coverage was further enlarged in 1975 when Congress expanded the meaning of "tests or devices" to encompass any jurisdiction that provided English-only election information, such as ballots, if the jurisdiction had a single language minority group that constituted more than five percent of the jurisdiction's voting-age citizens. These expansions brought numerous jurisdictions into coverage, including many located outside of the South.[3] To ease the burdens of the reauthorized special provisions, Congress liberalized the bailout procedure in 1982, allowing covered jurisdictions to escape coverage by upholding the voting rights of protected minorities and affirmatively acting to expand minority political participation.[4]:523
In addition to reauthorizing the special provisions and expanding coverage, Congress amended and added several other provisions to the Act. For instance, Congress expanded the original ban on "tests or devices" to apply nationwide in 1970, and in 1975, Congress made the ban permanent.[1]:6–9 Separately, in 1975 Congress expanded the Act's scope to protect language minorities from voting discrimination. Congress defined "language minority" to include "persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage."[5] Congress amended various provisions, such as the Section 5 preclearance requirement and Section 2 general prohibition of discriminatory voting laws, to prohibit discrimination against language minorities.[6]:199
Congress also enacted a bilingual election requirement in Section 203, which requires election officials in certain jurisdictions with large numbers of English-illiterate language minorities to provide ballots and voting information in the language of the language minority group. Originally set to expire after 10 years, Congress reauthorized Section 203 in 1982 for seven years, expanded and reauthorized it in 1992 for 15 years, and reauthorized it in 2006 for 25 years.[7]:19–21,25,49 The bilingual election requirements have remained controversial, with proponents arguing that bilingual assistance is necessary to enable recently naturalized citizens to vote and opponents arguing that the bilingual election requirements constitute costly unfunded mandates.[7]:26
Several of the amendments responded to judicial rulings that Congress disagreed with. In 1982, amended the Section 2 general prohibition of discriminatory voting laws to overturn the Supreme Court case Mobile v. Bolden (1980), which held that Section 2 prohibited only purposeful discrimination. Congress expanded Section 2 to explicitly ban any voting practice that had a discriminatory effect, irrespective of whether the practice was enacted or operated for a discriminatory purpose.[8] The creation of this "results test" shifted the majority of litigation brought under the Voting Rights Act from claims of Section 5 violations to claims of Section 2 violations.[4]:644–645 In 2006, Congress amended the Act to overturn two Supreme Court cases: Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board (2000),[9] which interpreted Section 5 to prohibit voting changes that were enacted or maintained for a "retrogressive" discriminatory purpose instead of any discriminatory purpose, and Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003),[10] which established a broader test for determining whether a redistricting plan had an impermissible effect under Section 5 than assessing only whether a minority group could elect its preferred candidates.[11]:207–208
In response to the Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which struck down the current coverage formula as unconstitutional,[12] several amendment acts were proposed, all of which failed to make progress.[13][14][15][16][17][18]
Anticipating the expiration of the Act's special provisions in 1970, Congress held extensive hearings on whether the Act should be amended and its special provisions reauthorized. Congress noted discrimination in voting continued in spite of the Act and that the Section 5 preclearance requirement had been minimally enforced since its enactment; between 1965 and 1970, covered jurisdictions had made merely 578 preclearance submissions. Ultimately, Congress determined that although significant progress had been made in reducing racial discrimination in voting since 1965, sufficient discrimination existed to justify extending the special provisions.[1]:6−8
President Richard Nixon's administration, which generally disliked civil rights laws but hoped to politically capitalize on the alienation of Southern white voters from the Democratic Party that the Act was causing, sought to reauthorize but weaken the law. Attorney General John N. Mitchell proposed a 3-year extension with amendments to extend the ban on "tests or devices" nationwide and abolish both the coverage formula and the preclearance requirement. Opposed by liberals and supported by Southern Democrats and Midwestern Republicans, this proposal initially passed in the House of Representatives,[2]:204–205 but it was rejected by the Senate, which crafted its own compromise bill. The Senate passed its version by a 64–12 vote, and the House then passed it by a bipartisan 237–132 vote.[19]:686–687 The legislation was enacted on June 17, 1970, as the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970.[20] President Nixon signed it into law on June 22.[2]:204–205,207
Through this legislation, Congress extended the special provisions for five years.[1]:8 Congress also expanded the coverage formula by supplementing it with 1968 trigger dates, bringing into coverage several new jurisdictions outside of the South[3] and appeasing several Southern legislators who felt the original coverage formula unfairly singled out Southern states. Simultaneously, Congress amended the bailout provision to require covered jurisdictions seeking bailout to prove that they had not used a test or device in a discriminatory manner in the ten-year period preceding their bailout request, an increase from the original five-year period requirement. Congress also expanded the ban on using tests or devices to the entire nation.[1]:6–8
Congress also added new provisions to the Act. Two new provisions exclusively regulated presidential elections: one created uniform rules for voter registration and absentee voting, and the other prohibited states from applying their own durational residency requirements as voting qualifications.[1]:7 Influenced by the draft of males at least 18 years of age to fight in the Vietnam War, Senator Ted Kennedy convinced Congress to add a provision guaranteeing citizens at least 18 years of age the right to vote in federal, state, and local elections.[2]:205–206 In a statement explaining his decision to sign the amendments, Nixon expressed doubts that this provision was constitutional, and he instructed the Attorney General to expedite litigation to test its constitutionality.[21] Later that year, the Supreme Court, in Oregon v. Mitchell (1970),[22] struck down the part of the provision lowering the voting age in state elections as unconstitutional; the Court upheld only the part of the provision that lowered the voting age in federal elections. The decision precipitated the ratification of the Twenty-sixth Amendment the following year, which lowered the voting age in all elections to 18.[4]:60
An Act to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to extend certain provisions for an additional seven years, to make permanent the ban against certain prerequisites to voting, and for other purposes
Passed the Senate on July 24, 1975(77-12) with amendment
House agreed to Senate amendment on July 28, 1975(345-56)
Signed into law by President Gerald Ford on August 6, 1975
Congress revisited the Act in 1975, the year that the Act's special provisions were again set to expire. The debate was less acrimonious than previous debates concerning the Act, reflecting an expanded consensus in Congress that the law remained necessary to remedy continued racial discrimination in voting. Unlike Nixon, President Gerald Ford's administration, which worked to improve relations with African Americans after Nixon's presidency, supported extending the Act without weakening it.[2]:209–210 After conducting several hearings, Congress passed legislation amending the Act; the Senate approved the amendments by a 77–12 vote, and the House of Representatives by a 346–56 vote.[19]:706 President Ford signed the amendments into law on August 6, 1975.[2]:214[23]
The amendments extended the Act's special provisions for seven years. Congress chose seven years to avoid having to reconsider the special provisions during the 1980s reapportionment process.[4]:624 Relatedly, Congress amended the bailout provision to require covered jurisdictions seeking bailout to prove that they had not used a test or device in a discriminatory manner in the 17-year period preceding their bailout request.[24]:1349 Congress also expanded the coverage formula by adding new dates in 1972 as triggering dates, which brought more jurisdictions into coverage.[3] Furthermore, Congress made permanent the nationwide prohibition on tests or devices.[1]:9
The 1975 amendments also expanded voting rights for minority groups that traditionally had fallen outside the Act's protections. Civil rights organizations representing Hispanic, Asian American, Native Alaskan, and Native American interests argued before Congress that such groups often were the victims of discriminatory voting practices, particularly in areas where English was not the dominant language.[24]:1350 After Congress heard testimony of language discrimination in voting, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX) successfully led an effort to amend the Act to protect language minorities.[2]:211 Specifically, Congress amended the definition of "test or device" to prohibit laws requiring ballots and voting information be provided exclusively in English in jurisdictions where a single-language minority group comprised more than 5% of the voting-age population. This in turn expanded the coverage formula to reach states such as Texas that Congress wanted to cover. Congress also enacted bilingual election requirements, which require election officials in certain jurisdictions to provide ballots and voting information in the language of language minority groups.[4]:57,521
1982
Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982
Long title
An Act to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to extend the effect of certain provisions, and for other purposes.
The House of Representatives, which was the first chamber to consider amendments,[24]:1380 conducted seven weeks of hearings on amendatory legislation at which over 100 witnesses testified, most of whom supported extending the Act's special provisions by at least 10 years.[1]:17 President Ronald Reagan's administration largely stayed out of the debate as the legislation worked its way through the House. However, President Reagan did indicate he supported replacing the coverage formula with a nationwide preclearance requirement.[24]:1384–1385 This caused a major controversy against the Reagan administration because it occurred at around the same time the administration was seeking to block the Internal Revenue Service from denying tax-exempt status to segregated private schools, which soon forced the Reagan administration to backtrack some of its opposition.[26] The House ultimately passed legislation maintaining the coverage formula and permanently extending the special provisions.[24]:1383 Supporters of the House bill hoped to sustain the momentum from the House and expedite approval of the House bill in the Senate, but Senators opposing the legislation slowed its passage through extensive committee hearings.[24]:1383–1384 Furthermore, the Reagan Administration announced its support for only a 10-year extension of the special provisions.[24]:1386 The Senate eventually compromised on maintaining the coverage formula unchanged and extending the special provisions by 25 years,[24]:1415 except for the Section 203(c) bilingual election requirement, which was extended for seven years.[7]:23 The Senate also agreed to liberalize the bailout procedure to allow a covered state or local government to escape coverage by proving to the U.S. District Court for D.C. that it had complied with the Voting Rights Act and undertook constructive efforts to expand opportunities for political participation in the 10 years preceding its bailout request.[4]:523 The bailout procedure was also amended to allow a local government to bail out of coverage even if its parent state was covered.[7]:23[27]
The provision Congress most intensely focused on amending was Section 2, which prescribes a general prohibition of discriminatory voting laws.[24]:1352 Two years earlier, the Supreme Court, in Mobile v. Bolden (1980), held that racially discriminatory laws violated the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments only if the laws were enacted or maintained for a discriminatory purpose; thus, showing that a law simply had a discriminatory effect was insufficient to state a constitutional claim of discrimination. The Court further held that Section 2 mirrored this constitutional standard.[28]:60–61 The decision had a major effect on voting rights litigation; civil rights lawyers decided not to pursue many planned cases, and courts overturned several judgments that were previously entered in favor of plaintiffs. This prompted nationwide outrage that weighed heavily on Congress as it considered amending the Act in 1982.[29]:149
During the nine days of Senate hearings concerning whether to amend the Act, Section 2 was the primary focus[24]:1389—in particular, whether to amend Section 2 to create a "results" test that prohibited any voting law that had a discriminatory effect, irrespective of whether the law was enacted or operated for a discriminatory purpose. President Reagan opposed creating a results test because its impact would be uncertain.[24]:1388–1389 Furthermore, some members of Congress, such as Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), raised concerns that a results test would fundamentally alter American democracy by requiring courts to impose proportional representation for protected minority groups as a remedy.[24]:1392 To assuage this concern, Senator Robert Dole (R-KS) proposed legislative language explicitly disclaiming that a results test would require proportional representation. This compromise won support from the Senate, the House, and the Reagan Administration.[24]:1414–1415 The House passed this version of the bill by a 389–24 vote,[30] and the Senate passed it by an 85–8 vote.[19]:707[31] President Reagan signed the legislation into law on June 29, 1982.[2]:231 The creation of the Section 2 results test shifted the majority of litigation brought under the Voting Rights Act from claims of Section 5 violations to claims of Section 2 violations.[4]:645
1992
Voting Rights Language Assistance Act of 1992
Long title
An Act to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with respect to bilingual election requirements
As the bilingual election requirement in Section 203(c) neared expiration in 1992, Congress considered legislation to extend and expand it. Representative José E. Serrano (D-NY) introduced legislation,[32] dubbed the Voting Rights Language Assistance Act of 1992, to extend the provision for 15 years, making its term coterminous with the other special provisions scheduled to expire in 2007. The legislation also expanded the coverage formula and the Section 203(c) bilingual election requirement to cover jurisdictions containing at least 10,000 persons of any one of the covered language minorities.[33]:50–51 This reached major cities such as Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.[34]:1486–1487 Finally, in recognition of "the historical fact that reservation boundaries predate and therefore often do not correspond to State or county lines," the legislation created an alternative coverage formula for Native American language-minority voters living on Indian reservations.[6]:225–226
This legislation received more Congressional opposition than the 1982 amendments did, most of it from Republicans.[34] Proponents argued that the lack of bilingual assistance hindered recently naturalized citizens from exercising their voting rights and that the country had a history of acceptance toward linguistic pluralism. Opponents argued that the Voting Rights Act was never meant to protect language minorities and that the bilingual assistance provision was a costly unfunded mandate.[7]:26 Opponents proposed several amendments to weaken the legislation, including limiting the extension to 5 years, requiring the federal government to pay for the bilingual voting materials, and completely removing the bilingual provisions. These amendments failed, and Congress passed the legislation with mostly Democratic support;[34] the House passed it by a 237–125 vote, and the Senate passed it by a 75–20 vote. President George H. W. Bush signed the legislation on August 26, 1992.[32]
2006
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006
Congress reconsidered the Act in 2006 as the special provisions were due to expire in 2007. Civil rights organizations advocated for the renewal and strengthening of the special provisions.[35]:206 As a matter of principle, Democrats generally supported renewing the special provisions. However, the Republican Party controlled both chambers of Congress and the presidency, and many Republicans considered the preclearance requirement an affront to states' rights and the principle of color-blindness.[11]:180 Furthermore, conservatives believed that the primary beneficiaries of the special provisions were African Americans, who overwhelmingly and increasingly voted for Democratic Party candidates.[35]:207 However, Republicans were receiving increasing support from some language minority groups, particularly Hispanics and Asian Americans, and they did not wish to risk losing that support by refusing to reauthorize the special provisions.[35]:208 Republicans also recognized that the Act often helped Republican candidates win by requiring jurisdictions to pack Democratic-leaning racial minorities into few electoral districts. In addition, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) had a strong desire to reauthorize the special provisions, and he led an early effort to pass a reauthorization bill before his chairmanship expired at the end of 2006. Thus, a consensus in favor of reauthorizing the special provisions emerged early in the legislative process.[11]:180–181
In 2005, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution began holding hearings on amending the Voting Rights Act. Few witnesses at the hearings testified against reauthorizing the special provisions, and the committee focused primarily on assembling evidence of discrimination in voting.[11]:181–182 Congress's evidentiary record of voting discrimination was viewed as particularly important because Congress believed that according to the Supreme Court case Boerne v. Flores (1997) and its progeny, Congress needed to demonstrate that legislation passed to enforce the Reconstruction Amendments was "congruent and proportional" to remedying or preventing constitutional violations. To make this showing, the committee needed to assemble evidence to demonstrate that the special provisions were generally successful in combating racial discrimination in voting, but not so successful as to no longer be necessary. Given the uncertainty surrounding the congruence and proportionality standard, political constraints, and the Supreme Court previously having upheld the special provisions as constitutional, the committee decided to reauthorize the special provisions without amending the coverage formula.[11]:192–194 The committee ultimately included in the record four types of evidence to support this reauthorization: statistics showing rates of minority voter registration, turnout, and elective officeholding in covered versus non-covered jurisdictions; statistics showing the behavior of covered jurisdictions and the Department of Justice in the preclearance process; instances of voting discrimination in covered jurisdictions; and data comparing successful Section 2 litigation in covered versus non-covered jurisdictions.[11]:195
On May 2, 2006, Representative Sensenbrenner introduced the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.[36][37] The bill proposed to extend the special provisions by 25 years and keep the coverage formula unchanged. The bill also proposed to amend the Act to overturn two recent Supreme Court cases: Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board (2000),[9] which interpreted Section 5 to prohibit voting changes that were enacted or maintained for a "retrogressive" purpose instead of any discriminatory purpose, and Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003),[10] which established a broader test for determining whether a redistricting plan had an impermissible effect under Section 5 than assessing only whether a minority group could elect its preferred candidates.[11]:207–208 While passage of the bill was virtually certain, a few Republican lawmakers attempted to amend the bill on the House floor. One group of legislators, led by Congressman Lynn Westmoreland (R–GA), argued that the reauthorization unfairly targeted certain jurisdictions for long-past discrimination.[38][39] Another group of 80 legislators signed a letter originated by Congressman Steve King (R–IA) arguing that the Act's bilingual election requirements constituted costly unfunded mandates.[40] All proposed amendments to the bill failed, though three received the support of a majority of the Republican caucus. Following the defeat of these amendments, the House passed the bill on July 13, 2006, by a 390–33 vote.[37] Notably, this tally included many Republicans who had previously voted in favor of the failed amendments.[8]
Shortly thereafter, the Senate unanimously passed the bill without amendment on July 20, 2006, by a 98–0 vote.[41] However, in an unprecedented event for a bill that passed unanimously out of committee, Senators of only one political party, Republicans, signed onto the bill's Senate committee report,[11]:178 and the report was not filed until six days after the bill's passage. The Senate report differed in significant ways from the House report, and in their own statement, Senate Democrats objected to parts of the Senate report that they believed highlighted evidence that could jeopardize the bill's constitutionality.[11]:186–189 The day after the committee report was filed, President George W. Bush signed the bill in a morning ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House on July 27, 2006, one year in advance of the 2007 expiration date.[41] The audience at the signing ceremony included family members of Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks, the reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, and other civil rights leaders.[41]
Proposed
Many proposals to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have been unsuccessful or remain pending in Congress. In 2013 the Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, invalidated the Voting Rights Act's coverage formula; several bills have been proposed to create a new coverage formula. In 2014, the Voting Rights Amendments Act was introduced in Congress to create a new coverage formula and amend various other provisions.[42] It was referred to the Constitution and Civil Justice congressional subcommittee on February 11, 2015, but no action was taken on it, and it expired[43] in 2017.[44] Again in 2019, Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Michigan) introduced bipartisan legislation to update the Voting Rights Act. The bill's proposed coverage formula would cover 13 states with a history of voter discrimination: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Arizona, California, New York, and Virginia.[45] On December 6, 2019, the House of Representatives voted 228–187 in favor of the bill. Pennsylvania Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick was the lone Republican to support it.[45] Should it have been passed by the Senate, President Donald Trump threatened to veto it.[46]
The For the People Act was reintroduced, again as H.R. 1 in the 117th Congress, and was passed by the House of Representatives on March 3, 2021, by a narrow, near-party line vote of 220–210, with all Republicans voting against and all but one Democrat voting for. The For the People Act currently awaits a vote in the Senate, which is divided 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans, with Vice PresidentKamala Harris holding the tie-breaking vote, though Republican use of the Senate filibuster has threatened to prevent the legislation from coming to a vote.
The John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which would create a new coverage formula for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to replace the formula struck down by the Shelby County decision, currently awaits a vote in the House of Representatives, where it is similarly expected to pass with Democrats largely in support and Republicans largely opposed.
Related Research Articles
The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government and each state from denying or abridging a citizen's right to vote "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments.
The USA PATRIOT Act was a landmark Act of the United States Congress, signed into law by President George W. Bush. The formal name of the statute is the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, and the commonly used short name is a contrived acronym that is embedded in the name set forth in the statute.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections. Designed to enforce the voting rights protected by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of federal civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country. The National Archives and Records Administration stated: "The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the most significant statutory change in the relationship between the federal and state governments in the area of voting since the Reconstruction period following the Civil War".
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools and public accommodations, and employment discrimination. The act "remains one of the most significant legislative achievements in American history".
A supermajority is a requirement for a proposal to gain a specified level of support which is greater than the threshold of more than one-half used for a simple majority. Supermajority rules in a democracy can help to prevent a majority from eroding fundamental rights of a minority, but they can also hamper efforts to respond to problems and encourage corrupt compromises at times when action is taken. Changes to constitutions, especially those with entrenched clauses, commonly require supermajority support in a legislature. Parliamentary procedure requires that any action of a deliberative assembly that may alter the rights of a minority have a supermajority requirement, such as a two-thirds vote. In consensus democracy the supermajority rule is applied in most cases.
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 is a landmark law in the United States signed into law by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during the King assassination riots.
The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was the first federal civil rights legislation passed by the United States Congress since the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The bill was passed by the 85th United States Congress and signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on September 9, 1957.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed by the 89th United States Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on April 11, 1965. Part of Johnson's "War on Poverty", the act has been one of the most far-reaching pieces of federal legislation affecting education ever passed by the United States Congress, and was further emphasized by the revised No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
The Civil Rights Act of 1960 is a United States federal law that established federal inspection of local voter registration polls and introduced penalties for anyone who obstructed someone's attempt to register to vote. It dealt primarily with discriminatory laws and practices in the segregated South, by which African Americans and Mexican-American Texans had been effectively disenfranchised since the late 19th and start of the 20th century. This was the fifth Civil Rights Act to be enacted in United States history. Over an 85-year period, it was preceded only by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, whose shortcomings largely influenced its creation. This law served to more effectively enforce what was set forth in the 1957 act through eliminating certain loopholes in it, and to establish additional provisions. Aside from addressing voting rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1960 also imposed criminal penalties for obstruction of court orders to limit resistance to the Supreme Court's school desegregation decisions, arranged for free education for military members' children, and banned the act of fleeing to avoid prosecution for property damage. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 was signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, or Grove City Bill, is a United States legislative act that specifies that entities receiving federal funds must comply with civil rights legislation in all of their operations, not just in the program or activity that received the funding. The Act overturned the precedent set by the Supreme Court decision in Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 (1984), which held that only the particular program in an educational institution receiving federal financial assistance was required to comply with the anti-discrimination provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, not the institution as a whole.
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a United States federal law signed by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. The Act provided $1.6 billion toward investigation and the prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress when prosecutors chose to not prosecute cases. The Act also established the Office on Violence Against Women within the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (JJDPA) is a United States federal law providing formula grants to states that follow a series of federal protections on the care and treatment of youth in the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems.
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that rejected a challenge from the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the United States. The preclearance provisions were ruled constitutional and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enforced in full.
Public Law 110-343 is a US Act of Congress signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush, which was designed to mitigate the growing financial crisis of the late-2000s by giving relief to so-called "Troubled Assets."
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193 (2009), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court regarding Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and in particular its requirement that proposed electoral-law changes in certain states must be approved by the federal government. In a 9–0 decision, the Court concluded that the district was eligible to apply for an exemption (bailout) from this section per Section 4(a), because the definition of "political subdivision" in Section 14(c)(2) included a district of this nature. In an 8–1 opinion, the Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of that provision, citing the principle of constitutional avoidance.
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous Court found that "the legacy of official discrimination ... acted in concert with the multimember districting scheme to impair the ability of "cohesive groups of black voters to participate equally in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice." The ruling resulted in the invalidation of districts in the North Carolina General Assembly and led to more single-member districts in state legislatures.
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and subsection (b) of Section 4, which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subject to preclearance based on their histories of racial discrimination in voting.
The USA Freedom Act is a U.S. law enacted on June 2, 2015, that restored and modified several provisions of the Patriot Act, which had expired the day before. The act imposes some new limits on the bulk collection of telecommunication metadata on U.S. citizens by American intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency. It also restores authorization for roving wiretaps and tracking lone wolf terrorists. The title of the act is a ten-letter backronym that stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act of 2015.
The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2023 is proposed voting rights legislation named after civil rights activist John Lewis. The bill would restore and strengthen parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, most notably its requirement for certain jurisdictions to seek federal approval before enacting certain changes to their voting laws. The bill was written in response to the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, which struck down the system that was used to determine which jurisdictions were subject to that requirement.
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to voting rights established by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), and specifically the applicability of Section 2's general provision barring discrimination against minorities in state and local election laws in the wake of the 2013 Supreme Court decision Shelby County v. Holder, which removed the preclearance requirements for election laws for certain states that had been set by Sections 4(b) and 5. Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee involves two of Arizona's election policies: one outlawing ballot collection and another banning out-of-precinct voting. The Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision in July 2021 that neither of Arizona's election policies violated the VRA or had a racially discriminatory purpose.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Issacharoff, Samuel; Karlan, Pamela S.; Pildes, Richard H. (2012). The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process (4thed.). Foundation Press. ISBN978-1-59941-935-0.
↑ Derfner, Armand (October 1989). Chandler Davidson (ed.). Minority Vote Dilution. Vote Dilution and the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982: Howard University Press. ISBN0-88258-176-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
