The Supreme Court made the right decision in striking down section 4(b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The United States has come tremendously far in terms of preventing voting discrimination since the Act was implemented. The original goals of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) were centered on abolishing the use of literacy tests, eliminating good character requirements for immigrants, terminating poll taxes, and authorizing national examiners to supervise the area’s voting policies (Fife 22). All of these procedures were put in place to secure the 15th Amendment which gave African American men the right to vote. Furthermore, since the birth of the act, African Americans have gained significant political power. In fact, “between 1972 and 2000,
…show more content…
The original enactment included the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, as well as specified counties in various states (The United States Department of Justice). However, a recent study took data from racist social media posts and combined that information with the number of active KKK groups in each state to devise a list of the ten most racist states in the U.S. According to their research, the most racially prejudiced states include: Illinois, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and, to top off the list, Texas (Moore 1). This information provides a brief understanding of the areas in the United States today that are most prejudiced. As it stands, only four of the original states addressed in the VRA remain among the ten most racist states. Although some people may argue that racial bigotry does not directly correlate to voting discrimination, there is unquestionably a greater chance of discrimination, both in voting and other capacities, in areas with extensive racial …show more content…
The basis of this argument is centered on the voting laws passed shortly after The Supreme Court decision regarding the act. According to the New York University School of Law, nine states passed voting laws after the court decision that are considered to be restrictive (Brennan Center for Justice). However, of these states, only Virginia was in the original preclearance formula (Brennan Center for Justice). It is inaccurate to say that striking down the preclearance formula of the act has caused states to fall back into their old discriminatory ways when one only one of the observed states has passed restrictive voting laws. Furthermore, the original intent of the Supreme Court decision in the case was not to allow states to pass discriminatory laws. For that reason, the Court left it open for a new formula to be drafted for current conditions (The United States Department of
The original enactment included the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, as well as specified counties in various states (The United States Department of Justice). However, a recent study took data from racist social media posts and combined that information with the number of active KKK groups in each state to devise a list of the ten most racist states in the U.S. According to their research, the most racially prejudiced states include: Illinois, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and, to top off the list, Texas (Moore 1). This information provides a brief understanding of the areas in the United States today that are most prejudiced. As it stands, only four of the original states addressed in the VRA remain among the ten most racist states. Although some people may argue that racial bigotry does not directly correlate to voting discrimination, there is unquestionably a greater chance of discrimination, both in voting and other capacities, in areas with extensive racial …show more content…
The basis of this argument is centered on the voting laws passed shortly after The Supreme Court decision regarding the act. According to the New York University School of Law, nine states passed voting laws after the court decision that are considered to be restrictive (Brennan Center for Justice). However, of these states, only Virginia was in the original preclearance formula (Brennan Center for Justice). It is inaccurate to say that striking down the preclearance formula of the act has caused states to fall back into their old discriminatory ways when one only one of the observed states has passed restrictive voting laws. Furthermore, the original intent of the Supreme Court decision in the case was not to allow states to pass discriminatory laws. For that reason, the Court left it open for a new formula to be drafted for current conditions (The United States Department of