# The Voting Rights Act **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2013, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160 "2013-02-23T13:25:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/21 "2013-02-24T20:45:22Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Not what I said. > So if a group is denied their right to vote the state can lose representatives. So, are you seriously arguing that the Voting Rights Act of 1963 was not needed?:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/22 "2013-02-25T00:41:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The same options that are available to every single person in the country seeking laws that assist their preferred outcome. Lobby Congress, create political narratives that favor their outcome, march in protest, go on hunger strikes. In other words, do the things that resulted in the Voting Rights Act. Those things did not always sway local authorities in the past, but they did result in federal solutions. Why would it be any different this time around? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/23 "2013-02-25T02:16:37Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > In other words, do the things that resulted in the Voting Rights Act. > > Those things did not always sway local authorities in the past, but they did result in federal solutions. Why would it be any different this time around? I have no idea. I’m not actually advancing any particular point here. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/24 "2013-02-25T02:45:30Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > So if a group is denied their right to vote the state can lose representatives. I assume you’re aware there was an extended period lasting several decades after 1868 when many voters were strongly discouraged from voting. This was, in fact, what the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to address. No loss of representation resulted. So it’s been demonstrated that the Fourteenth Amendment (or the Fifteenth) does not prevent disenfranchisement if it isn’t actively enforced. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/25 "2013-02-25T15:55:18Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I assume you’re aware there was an extended period lasting several decades after 1868 when many voters were strongly discouraged from voting. This was, in fact, what the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to address. No loss of representation resulted. So it’s been demonstrated that the Fourteenth Amendment (or the Fifteenth) does not prevent disenfranchisement if it isn’t actively enforced. Really? I had no clue! So what you are saying is that we needed a new law because the current law was not being enforced? I’m not saying that the Voting Rights of 1965 was unnecessary but my question is why not enforce the laws on the books before making new laws. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/26 "2013-02-25T16:02:14Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Really? I had no clue! > So what you are saying is that we needed a new law because the current law was not being enforced? I’m not saying that the Voting Rights of 1965 was unnecessary but my question is why not enforce the laws on the books before making new laws. :rolleyes: That is the same objection that might have been raised to the Voting Rights Act, since the 15th Amendment already existed. New legislation is proposed because existing legislation is for one reason or another unsatisfactory/ineffectual. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/27 "2013-02-25T16:06:24Z")
Still curious about this: > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > What is the basis for the challenge to the Act? Exceeds federal authority to regulate state actions? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/28 "2013-02-25T16:10:43Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I’m not saying that the Voting Rights of 1965 was unnecessary but my question is why not enforce the laws on the books before making new laws. Because it is very difficult, in a federal democracy, to take away the people’s right to be represented in the Congress, even if it if constitutionally permitted. That clause of the 14th is very problematic, as a matter of practical politics. On the other hand, it is politically much easier to enact proposals to implement the right of all voters to vote. (At least until recently. :rolleyes: ) Strengthening the right to vote has much stronger popularity than depriving people of the right to be represented. The fact that Congress never used that power in over a century, in spite of wide-spread suppression of the right to vote, is a good indication that it would not work and some other approach was needed. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/29 "2013-02-25T16:22:34Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Why would it have to be a political party? Couldn’t the disenfranchised citizens go to court and argue that if they can’t vote then representation should be reduced accordingly? This wouldn’t require the backing of a political party. The clause doesn’t say which branch of the federal government has the power to deprive the transgressor state of its representation. However, there are at least two factors pointing to it being a power of the Congress, not of the courts: 1. The clause has some similarity in purpose to the [federal guarantee that each state shall have a republican form of government](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Obligations_of_the_United_States). The Supreme Court has held that that clause is not enforceable by the courts, but by Congress and the Executive, as a political question: [Luther v. Borden (1849](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_v._Borden)). The analysis from that case would support, in my opinion, the argument that the deprivation of state representation is a function for Congress, not the courts. 2. The allocation of seats in the House of Representatives is a function of Congress: [Constitution, Art. I, Section 2, clause 3](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Apportionment_of_Representatives_and_taxes). Since the clause in the 14th Amendment deals with the apportionment of seats, I would think there is a good argument that it is conferring an additional power on Congress, not on the courts, to change the apportionment in the circumstances set out in the 14th Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/30 "2013-02-25T17:56:39Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > So what you are saying is that we needed a new law because the current law was not being enforced? Not at all. What I said was we would need a new law _if_ the current law _stopped_ being enforced. This is a thread about the possibility of the Voting Rights Act being declared unconstitutional. If that doesn’t happen, I’m okay with the current laws. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/31 "2013-02-25T19:34:22Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > As opposed to redistricting meant to maximize black voters’ influence? Seriously… or are/were minority majority districts a myth. Bearing in mind that the question under debate remains: > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If significant parts of the Voting Rights Act are found to be unconstitutional, what will be the recourse of southern black voters if efforts like that in Kilmichael MS or something similar to poll taxes/voting tests are put into place again? What is the relevance of your remark? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/32 "2013-02-25T23:21:38Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Really? I had no clue! > So what you are saying is that we needed a new law because the current law was not being enforced? I’m not saying that the Voting Rights of 1965 was unnecessary but my question is why not enforce the laws on the books before making new laws. The 14th and 15th amendments even say that “the Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” The method of enforcing the laws on the books is making new laws. That’s what the amendments themselves explicitly say. They’re not meant to stand alone. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/33 "2013-02-26T14:04:30Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > The 14th and 15th amendments even say that “the Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” The method of enforcing the laws on the books is making new laws. That’s what the amendments themselves explicitly say. They’re not meant to stand alone. So then my question would be why wouldn’t the Radical Republicans make a new law lowering representation right after the 14th Amendment. I mean the South wasn’t given representation at all until they did things “right” so for Congress at the time to say that since Blacks were not given the vote so the South loses representation would have made perfect sense after the 1866 election. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/34 "2013-02-26T17:41:40Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Still curious about this: It’s not so much that the VRA is inherently unconstitutional. It’s that the legilative findings were insufficient to support extension of the Act in 2006, at least as to the DOJ preclearance requirement. You can read the petitioners’ SCOTUS brief [here](http://www.projectonfairrepresentation.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/POFR-Shelby-Co.-Brief-on-the-Merits-12-96ts.pdf). ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/35 "2013-02-26T19:09:45Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s not so much that the VRA is inherently unconstitutional. It’s that the legilative findings were insufficient to support extension of the Act in 2006, at least as to the DOJ preclearance requirement. You can read the petitioners’ SCOTUS brief [here](http://www.projectonfairrepresentation.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/POFR-Shelby-Co.-Brief-on-the-Merits-12-96ts.pdf). It certainly would be nice to remove the stigma the VRA puts on various states and counties. 1964 was a long time ago, folks. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/36 "2013-02-26T19:36:12Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > It certainly would be nice to remove the stigma the VRA puts on various states and counties. 1964 was a long time ago, folks. I think places like Kilmichael MS (and Vidor TX, for another example) have earned such a stigma, even in recent decades. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/37 "2013-02-26T19:40:30Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think places like Kilmichael MS (and Vidor TX, for another example) have earned such a stigma, even in recent decades. Ok, but that’s no reason to punish: > [@](#): > > States > > Alabama, except for the city of Pinson > Alaska > Arizona > Georgia, except for the city of Sandy Springs > Louisiana > Mississippi > South Carolina > Texas, except for Jefferson County Drainage District Number Seven and Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One > Virginia, except for 24 counties (Amherst, Augusta, Bedford, Botetourt, Carroll, Craig, Culpeper, Essex, Frederick, Grayson, Greene, James City, King George, Middlesex, Page, Prince William, Pulaski, Rappahanock, Roanoke, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Washington, Warren, and Wythe) and six independent cities (Fairfax, Harrisonburg, Manassas Park, Salem, Williamsburg, and Winchester) > > Counties > > California: Kings (except for Alta Irrigation District), Monterey, Yuba (except for Browns Valley Irrigation District) > Florida: Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, Monroe > New York: Bronx, Kings (Brooklyn), New York (Manhattan) > North Carolina: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Camden, Caswell, Chowan, Cleveland (except for the city of Kings Mountain), Craven, Cumberland, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gaston, Gates, Granville, Greene, Guilford, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Jackson, Lee, Lenoir, Martin, Nash, Northampton, Onslow, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Person, Pitt, Robeson, Rockingham, Scotland, Union, Vance, Washington, Wayne, Wilson > South Dakota: Shannon, Todd > > Townships > > Michigan: Clyde Township (Allegan County), Buena Vista Township > New Hampshire: Rindge, Millsfield, Pinkham’s Grant, Stewartstown, Stratford, Benton, Antrim, Boscawen, Newington, Unity Luckily, my own Kentucky escaped the stigma, by removing voting impediments before the November 1st, 1964 date the VRA used. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/38 "2013-02-26T19:42:41Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Ok, but that’s no reason to punish: That’s part of the problem- you see it as _punishment_, ignoring the large percentage of the populations of those states who likely see it as _protection_. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/39 "2013-02-26T19:44:57Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That’s part of the problem- you see it as _punishment_, ignoring the large percentage of the populations of those states who likely see it as _protection_. It’s both. I submit that we can ensure equal voting rights for all without the VRA’s preclearance system. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/40 "2013-02-26T19:56:34Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > It certainly would be nice to remove the stigma the VRA puts on various states and counties. 1964 was a long time ago, folks. Not long enough, apparently, since so many states and localities remain under preclearance orders. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160.md?page=3)