The 1965 Voting Rights Act was designed to eliminate racial discrimination in voting, including literacy tests. It was widely effective in increasing Black voter registration and Black candidate’s access to public office. But in Shelby County v. Holder, Chief Justice John Roberts invalidate the coverage formula for determining which states were subject to preclearance. (Please see the Shelby County explainer above if your still not sure what the case is about.) In doing so, he pointed to many of the developments since passage of the 1965 Civil Rights Act: In the opinion he wrote:
[H]istory did not end in 1965. By the time the Act was reauthorized in 2006, there had been 40 more years of it. In assessing the current need for a preclearance system that treats States differently from one another today, that history cannot be ignored. During that time, largely because of the Voting Rights Act, voting tests were abolished, disparities in voter registration and turnout due to race were erased, and African-Americans attained political office in record numbers. And yet the coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 ignores these developments, keeping the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems, rather than current data reflecting current needs.
After completing the 1965 literacy test, write a 150 – 200 word post in which you consider the role of racial discrimination in voting in the United States. Some questions you might consider:
How has racial discrimination evolved since the 1965 Literacy Test was implemented?
Do you think “preclearance” of changes to voting laws in certain jurisdictions that have a history of discrimination is still necessary? Why or why not?
Do you think it is fair that some states are treated differently based on what they did in the past? Why or why not?
What other things might the government do to make sure people are not discriminated against at the polls?
