Do we still need the Voting Rights Act, or is it
extraneous? In 1965, it was needed to combat the severe racism that African-Americans had to face. Restrained from voting due to their skin color, the African-American population was not being heard. However, now, racism (although it still clearly exists) is not nearly as much as a rampant problem. As a result, section 5 of the Act seems somewhat pointless. Section 5 specifies that states with histories of racism must get all changes to voting rules pre-approved by the Justice Department before they can enact the change. Since racism isn't quite so relevant any more, shouldn't this pre-approval be pointless and a waste of time? Maybe.
However, there really doesn't seem to be any big problem with it being there. It's a protection against racism, who would care if it is in place or not? For people to have some motivation to get rid of it in the first place, they would have to have some quarrel with that protection. That alone is enough to warrant suspicion towards
why someone would want the Voting Rights Act gone.
Should the Voting Rights Act stick around? Does it even matter at this point? Why would anyone actually want it gone in the first place?
7 comments:
I feel that the Voting Rights Act should stay. The act does nothing but protect against racism and although it is a lot less extreme then the 1960's, racism still exists in today's society . It took a long time for the act to be implemented in the first place, to get rid of it would make all that hard work useless. I feel there are a couple reasons why someone would want to get rid of the Voting Right Act. The first, and probably the most unlikely, reason is that they want things to return as they were in the 1960's which would mean African Americans having unequal rights. Another reason, as mentioned in the blog, is that pre approval may be a waste of time to some people. Even with these reasons through, I still feel like there is no excuse to not allow the Voting Rights Act to stay.
I think that the Voting Rights Act should definitely not be repealed. Though the racism in the voting system is not as apparent as literacy tests and such, there is still a lot of covert institutionalized racism, and not just in the South. The same guy who wrote the CNN article wrote an article in the New Yorker back in May, quoting Judge Tatel saying, "Tatel’s opinion acknowledged the obvious: that a great deal had changed for the better in the South, and elsewhere, since 1965. He said further that the evidence of continuing discrimination was “by no means unambiguous.” Still, while the days of Bull Connor are long gone, Tatel said that Congress still had reason to keep Section 5 in place when it held the reauthorization vote in 2006. “Vote dilution” remained a big problem for black citizens; that is, white legislators were still “ ‘packing’ minorities into a single district, spreading minority voters thinly among several districts, annexing predominately white suburbs, and so on.” Certain facts, too, were unavoidable, notably that “not one African American had yet been elected to statewide office in Mississippi, Louisiana, or South Carolina.” In short, Tatel concluded that “serious and widespread intentional discrimination persisted in covered jurisdictions and that case-by-case enforcement alone … would leave minority citizens with an inadequate remedy.” Without Section 5, Tatel concluded, the rights of minority voters would be in jeopardy."
I firmly believe that as long as racism exists, it is relevant to the whole of society. The effects of slavery are long-term, so states "with a history of racism," although it may not be as bad as it once was, are still risk factors when it comes to civil rights and their protection. And as both Eddie and Sam have mentioned, it does not seem that having this extra defense against unconstitutional and unjust acts is really hurting anyone.
I agree with Eavan that racism still exists today, but I don't think any country will get to the point where they are completely tolerant of all races. I think a nation free of racism is ideal but highly unlikely to ever occur. The most visible racism is the deep rooted racism that is passed through generations of families. The fight for Civil Rights in the 1960's was so powerful I think repealing the Voting Rights Act would be a dishonor to those who fought so hard to get the Voting Rights Act implemented. Having the Voting Rights Act in the Constitution is more for symbolic purposes rather than legal purposes. I think it gives African Americans and all those who were turned away from voting booths an opportunity to point to the Voting Rights Act and feel some sense of relevance in our nation. I can't see why anyone would bother to repeal the act given its historical significance.
I agree with everyone else that commented that the Voting Rights Act should not be repealed. Even though we want to believe that everyone is equal, there are still many parts of the U.S. where racism is evident. For example, with Affirmative Action in colleges. I think that if there was no racism, and everyone was equal, then there would be no need for Affirmative Action; students would be looked at with no regard to race, religion, etc. Since we do use Affirmative Action, it seems like they are saying that without it, then racism would be evident throughout schools. I agree with Sam that though a racist-free country would be ideal, the U.S. would still have a long way to go before achieving that. If the Voting Rights Act were to be repealed, then I think that the U.S. would be taking a step in the wrong direction. Though it may not seem as evident in a state like California, I feel that some people would start acting out on their racist thoughts and create a divide between races.
Although we may consider racism to not be as prominent as it was in the past, the simple fact that it still occurs justifies keeping the Voting Rights Act in place. We don't know how much real racism goes unreported, so just because we don't see it as often does not mean individual cases will always be less severe. People still die from discrimination and "it's getting better" is no excuse.
I believe that none of the Voting Rights Act should be repealed. As Preston said in his post, keeping the Voting Rights Act doesn't have any negative consequences, besides the fact that uses up a little bit of the Justice Department's time. Although not as prevalent, racism is still a problem in our society and I think that anything that helps combat that should remain intact. As Eddie and Sam Bowman said, civil rights activists worked for years to get the Voting Rights Act and repealing it almost seems disrespectful to their hard work. I can't see any downsides to keeping regulations that help uphold equality and I hope that none of the Voting Rights Act is repealed.
Post a Comment