Analysis Paper #2
After reviewing the background of The Voting Rights Act (VRC) of 1965 from the case files from www.nytimes.com, I will brief discuss the purpose of it. According to the required reading of the New York Times, “The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was encated to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting.” Voting was never considered equal when it came to women or people of color. In our history, many states never allowed those two groups to vote. However, they wanted to include them in the general population count. This is a form of discrimination and considered unconstitutional and against civil rights. Looking back at the Timeline: A History of the Voting Rights. Voting discrimination started as far back ad …show more content…
Times have changes dramatically since the original Voting Rights Act had been established. The original 5 year requirement had been long passed, but the topic had been brought up and an expansion was initiated in for an additional 25vyers 2006. They also claimed sections of the act specifically parts 4(b) and 5 were unconstitutional. How I understand it is that section 4(b) has a coverage formula has a prerequisites, for lower voting registration and turnout. Section 5, no changes in voting can take place until it has been approved. The clearance is called a “preclearance” …show more content…
v. Holder case brings up a new set of voting requirements. As I mentioned before, there will always be a voter discrimination between the states and people. I am doubtful that everyone can come to an agreement on what is to be determined equal voting rights. It would probably be best if a law was passed that all the states must obey by the same set of voting laws. However, I don’t ever see this happening. From the publication from Pro Publica (www.propublica.org) gives different voter challenges several states are seeing. Texas, North Carolina and Ohio are implementing stricter laws by having people show a valid identification of them. On the other hand some states such as Oregon are being more leaniant with voter laws. I don’t understand the purpose of putting voter limitations on a certain groups that are considered poor or minorities. When election time comes maybe it is their one vote that will make a difference of who America will see sitting in the White House representing the great nation. I’m not certain America is truly a “Great Nation” any
After reviewing the background of The Voting Rights Act (VRC) of 1965 from the case files from www.nytimes.com, I will brief discuss the purpose of it. According to the required reading of the New York Times, “The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was encated to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting.” Voting was never considered equal when it came to women or people of color. In our history, many states never allowed those two groups to vote. However, they wanted to include them in the general population count. This is a form of discrimination and considered unconstitutional and against civil rights. Looking back at the Timeline: A History of the Voting Rights. Voting discrimination started as far back ad …show more content…
Times have changes dramatically since the original Voting Rights Act had been established. The original 5 year requirement had been long passed, but the topic had been brought up and an expansion was initiated in for an additional 25vyers 2006. They also claimed sections of the act specifically parts 4(b) and 5 were unconstitutional. How I understand it is that section 4(b) has a coverage formula has a prerequisites, for lower voting registration and turnout. Section 5, no changes in voting can take place until it has been approved. The clearance is called a “preclearance” …show more content…
v. Holder case brings up a new set of voting requirements. As I mentioned before, there will always be a voter discrimination between the states and people. I am doubtful that everyone can come to an agreement on what is to be determined equal voting rights. It would probably be best if a law was passed that all the states must obey by the same set of voting laws. However, I don’t ever see this happening. From the publication from Pro Publica (www.propublica.org) gives different voter challenges several states are seeing. Texas, North Carolina and Ohio are implementing stricter laws by having people show a valid identification of them. On the other hand some states such as Oregon are being more leaniant with voter laws. I don’t understand the purpose of putting voter limitations on a certain groups that are considered poor or minorities. When election time comes maybe it is their one vote that will make a difference of who America will see sitting in the White House representing the great nation. I’m not certain America is truly a “Great Nation” any