SUFFRAGE Notes The United States constantly prides itself on the fact that it was a country founded upon the idea that the people should be the essence of government. Indeed, the United States is a DEMOCRATIC-­REPUBLIC Democratic -­> Citizens VOTE Republic -­> people represent citizens in government. U.S. citizens value their ability to vote for their elected representatives, whether it’s the President, members of Congress, the Governor of our state, our state legislatures, the Mayor of our city, or our city council members… we love voting! What’s more legitimate than a government made up by the people, for the people!? De jure > de facto SUFFRAGE = THE RIGHT TO VOTE If we pride our country on the right to vote, you would think that the original U.S. Constitution would guarantee all citizens the right to vote… but it didn’t  Therefore, according to the 10th amendment, states were the ones to determine who was granted suffrage. For a looooooong time, many groups of people were denied suffrage  Which Constitutional amendments extended suffrage? 15th Amendment – ratified 1870 – “race, color, or previous condition of servitude” cannot bar someone from voting. Former slaves can now vote. We’ll discuss the many loopholes that were exploited… 17th Amendment – ratified 1913 – Citizens now directly elect their U.S. Senators. 19th Amendment – ratified 1920 – Women can vote!!! 23rd Amendment – ratified 1961 – Citizens of Washington D.C. now get to vote for President! … 1 condition… D.C. only gets 3 Electoral College votes. 24th Amendment – ratified 1964 – You can’t be forced to pay to vote. 26th Amendment – ratified 1971 – All citizens 18+ years-­‐old can vote! Just a reminder … anything not explicitly ruled on by the federal government is reserved to the states to decide (10th Amendment). How did states exploit loopholes in voting laws to limit certain citizens from voting? A variety of tactics… -­‐ Minimum level of education o Proof of HS diploma o LITERACY TESTS! -­‐ Move polling places in inconvenient locations. -­‐ Grandfather clause -­‐ Other odd requirements -­‐ Currently: voter ID laws (see “Congressional Membership” powerpoint) How did the federal government close these loopholes exploited by racist states so all people could exercise their right to vote? Voting Rights Act of 1965: Sec. 3 (b): “If in a proceeding instituted by the Attorney General
under any statute to enforce the guarantees of the fifteenth amendment in any State or political
subdivision the court finds that a test or device has been used for the purpose or with the effect
of denying or abridging the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or
color, it shall suspend the use of tests and devices in such State or political subdivisions as
the court shall determine is appropriate and for such period as it deems necessary.” Meaning… If the federal government finds that a state is giving a literacy test, the federal government has the power to ban that test. NO MORE LITERACY TESTS! The Voting Rights Act was challenged all the way through the Supreme Court. SCOTUS was asked to consider the following question in Katzenbach v. Morgan (1965): Question of Katzenbach v. Morgan:
Does Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 exceed the scope of
Congress' powers to enact legislation because it infringes on powers reserved to
the states under the Tenth Amendment? Notice how this question is framed in the language of state sovereignty protected by the 10th Amendment. In reality, the people challenging the Voting Rights Act just wanted to keep people they didn’t like from voting :/ Key to the answer of Katzenbach v. Morgan: “It is thus maintained that whatever may be the validity of literacy tests per se as a condition of voting, application of such a test to one literate in Spanish, in the context of the large and politically significant Spanish-­‐speaking community in New York, serves no legitimate state interest, and is thus an arbitrary classification that violates the Equal Protection Clause. Meaning… States can’t make any reasonable argument about why they need literacy tests. So if states don’t need to give literacy tests, then surely the federal government is not infringing on their sovereignty to ban literacy tests. -­‐-­‐ The ongoing battle: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elisabeth-­‐macnamara/tuning-­‐in-­‐-­‐
paying-­‐attenti_b_3017445.html