Our blog series Vote 2012 aims to educate and update voters as we head into the U.S. presidential elections of 2012.
Suppression of the right to vote has a long history in the United States. Over time, however, property qualifications for voting were eliminated and the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments to the Constitution were adopted to end the exclusion of African Americans and women from the ballot. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment also banned other restrictions on the right to vote except by reason of age or participation in rebellion or other crimes.
At least so far as African Americans were concerned, these measures did not suffice, and it has been necessary for the courts to strike down such practices as poll taxes, white primaries, and blatantly discriminatory malapportionment. An example of the last of these was what happened in Tuskegee, Alabama. Until 1957, it was a square-shaped city with about 400 African American voters. That year, the state legislature made it a 28-sided city from which all but fewer than 10 African American voters were excluded. This was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals but that court was reversed unanimously by the United States Supreme Court.
Half a century ago, in 1961, the United States Commission on Civil Rights transmitted a landmark five-volume report to President John F. Kennedy and to the Senate and the House of Representatives. The 380-page first volume dealt with the right to vote. It focused particularly on abuses in about 100 counties of eight Southern states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.
Aside from outright intimidation, which was common in that era, it identified a number of practices that were employed to suppress voting by African Americans. An example was a requirement of a specified number of registered voters to serve as “vouchers” to identify would-be voters. Where no African Americans were registered, this meant that none could vouch for new voters. In most of those places, no whites would vouch for African Americans. To ensure that a few renegade whites could not have much impact, rules were also enforced limiting the number of times a voter could vouch for another.
The Voting Rights Act and strenuous efforts by the United States Department of Justice under presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and the struggles by civil rights workers of the 1960s in which a considerable number were murdered, helped to overcome many such restrictions on the right to vote.
For someone like me, who remembers those struggles well and took part in them (not by front-line participation in voter registration campaigns but by organizing support at a safe distance), it is particularly dismaying that suppression of the right to vote has again become an important factor in circumscribing the democratic process.
Today, suppression is not primarily a practice in eight Southern states. The phenomenon is nation-wide. It reflects the extreme partisanship of our era. Attempts are being made all across the country to exclude African Americans, students and other young people, and new citizens from registering and exercising their right to vote.
Half a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court could be counted upon to turn thumbs down on the most blatant forms of discrimination. That is not the case today. If there were a counterpart today of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights of half a century ago, it would probably report that suppression of the vote is now as extensive or more extensive, than it was in that era. The struggle required to turn the tide may not have the lethal consequences of that which took place a half century ago, but it seems likely to be at least as difficult.
8 Comments
While the history narrated here is correct,
The last paragraph is so speculative as to be meaningless. To register to vote these days is so easy. Granted, not everyone has a driver License, but everyone has a social security card. Granted not every one is physically able, or close to voting station, but if someone is intent on voting I fail to see how such a person cannot muster help from family or friends or community organizers to go out and vote.
No specifics are given here as to how the voter discrimination of today is occurring, so the author is not making his point with any proof.
I just don't see it. The only thing I can think of is the requirement to show ID. Should we be picketing liquor stores, check cashing services, retail stores, etc. because they have the same requirement. For those without drivers licenses, subsidized ID cards are available from the government, and many organizations provide free transportation. What else is there? Do I think presenting ID is a good thing? Yes. It's a small thing, and I believe most if not all people have some form. Life in America requires it. I also find it insulting that some hold the poor in so low a regard that they think them so...what? lazy? stupid?.. that they are unable to apply for free ID, or unable to remember to take it with them when voting. I believe they are more competent than this writer gives them credit for.
48 states and the District of Columbia bar voting on the part of those with a prior felony conviction. Given the disproportionate representation of minorities in the criminal justice system, this is a tremendous and systematic disenfranchisement of persons who already have paid hugely with time spent behind bars.
Correct Mr. Crowley. Along with that, adhoc committees stripped automatic civil rights reinstatement for ex-felons who were convicted, sentenced, and served time for non-violent and non-sexually-oriented misdeeds. The clandestine committees took place in Governors' offices with less than five people present; including the Governor! Specifically, Florida added an additional five year waiting period after sentences are completely served, which includes follow-up probation and/or parole time before an application for civil rights reinstatement would be considered. In addition, the process is one that takes years to complete due to fiscal constraints that keep state government offices understaffed. In short, history delineates that oppressed people tend to behest federal government intervention; due to regional bias toward acceptance of unfair treatment. Amalgams of insidiously heinous acts are fueled by lack of tolerance for ethnic uniqueness. Therefore expect that those who get civil rights reinstated will vote for a liberal or independent candidate while the entities orchestrating the impingements to automatic civil rights reinstatement, which includes the right to vote, are conservatives.
the author of the documentation maintains speculation based on historical facts. let the present facts be exhibited to drive the point home. Otherwise with the past the author is correct.
48 states and the District of Columbia bar voting on the part of those with a prior felony conviction. Given the disproportionate representation of minorities in the criminal justice system, this is a tremendous and systematic disenfranchisement of persons who already have paid hugely with time spent behind bars.
Correct Mr. Crowley. Along with that, adhoc committees stripped automatic civil rights reinstatement for ex-felons who were convicted, sentenced, and served time for non-violent and non-sexually-oriented misdeeds. The clandestine committees took place in Governors' offices with less than five people present; including the Governor! Specifically, Florida added an additional five year waiting period after sentences are completely served, which includes follow-up probation and/or parole time before an application for civil rights reinstatement would be considered. In addition, the process is one that takes years to complete due to fiscal constraints that keep state government offices understaffed. In short, history delineates that oppressed people tend to behest federal government intervention; due to regional bias toward acceptance of unfair treatment. Amalgams of insidiously heinous acts are fueled by lack of tolerance for ethnic uniqueness. Therefore expect that those who get civil rights reinstated will vote for a liberal or independent candidate while the entities orchestrating the impingements to automatic civil rights reinstatement, which includes the right to vote, are conservatives.
the author of the documentation maintains speculation based on historical facts. let the present facts be exhibited to drive the point home. Otherwise with the past the author is correct.
Add your voice