extending voting rights assignment quizlet

The Case for Extending and Amending the Voting Rights Act - Introduction and Summary

INTRODUCTION

Five Presidents – Lyndon Johnson (1965), Richard Nixon (1970), Gerald Ford (1975), Ronald Reagan (1982), and George H. W. Bush (1992) – have supported the enactment or reauthorization of key parts of the Voting Rights Act. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that President Johnson’s support of the Voting Rights Act had helped transform the bloody assault on civil rights marchers by state troopers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, into a “shining moment in the conscience of man.” (1) On signing the 1982 extension of the Act, which passed Congress by a vote of 389 to 24, President Reagan called the right to vote the “crown jewel of American liberties.” (2)

This report describes the voting rights litigation brought, or participated in, by the Voting Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union after the amendment and extension of the Voting Rights Act on June 29, 1982. It documents continuing purposeful discrimination in voting against racial minorities in the South and against American Indians in the West. It also demonstrates the urgent need for extension of the special provisions of the Act scheduled to expire in 2007: (1) Section 5 preclearance; (2) the minority language assistance provisions of Section 203; and (3) the federal examiner and election observer provisions.

Section 5 requires jurisdictions with significant histories of discrimination in voting to preclear, or get federal approval of, any new voting practices or procedures and to show that they do not have a discriminatory purpose or effect. (3) Preclearance may be granted by the Attorney General or the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. The Senate Report that accompanied the 1982 extension of Section 5 warned that without the preclearance requirement, “many of the advances of the past decade could be wiped out overnight with new schemes and devices.” (4) The minority language provisions of Section 203 require jurisdictions with significant numbers of American citizens who are limited in their ability to speak English to provide bilingual oral and written assistance in voting. (5) The special provisions also authorize the Attorney General to assign federal examiners and election observers to insure that minorities are allowed to register and vote without intimidation or discrimination. (6) Appendix A to this report describes in more detail the special provisions set to expire in 2007, as well as the permanent provisions of the Act. Appendix B lists the jurisdictions covered by the special provisions. Appendix C contains two tables showing those local jurisdictions required to provide minority language assistance in voting pursuant to Section 203 because of their American Indian populations, and displays which of these jurisdictions are also covered under Section 5.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report discusses the involvement of the ACLU Voting Rights Project in 293 cases brought in 31 states since June 1982, the date of the last extension of the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, challenging discrimination in voting and failure to comply with federal and state election laws. (7) The states and the number of cases brought were: Alabama (9); Arkansas (2); California (1); Colorado (1); Connecticut (1); Florida (15); Georgia (145); Illinois (1); Kansas (2); Louisiana (4); Maryland (4); Michigan (1); Minnesota (2); Mississippi (3); Missouri (2); Montana (6); Nebraska (2); New Jersey (1); New Mexico (1); New York (1); North Carolina (17); Ohio (1); Pennsylvania (1); Rhode Island (2); South Carolina (38); South Dakota (6); Tennessee (3); Texas (3); Virginia (15); Washington (2); and Wyoming (1).

I. SECTION 5 HAS BLOCKED IMPLEMENTATION OF DISCRIMINATORY VOTING CHANGES There have been more than 1,000 objections under Section 5 by the Department of Justice since 1982, encompassing an even greater number of voting changes in the covered jurisdictions. These objections protected millions of voters in thousands of elections over the past two decades. A few examples from the cases discussed in this report will suffice to illustrate the continuing importance of Section 5.

The City of Albany, Georgia: 2002-2003 Following the 2000 census, the City of Albany, Georgia, adopted a new redistricting plan for its mayor and commission to replace an existing malapportioned plan, but it was rejected by the Department of Justice under Section 5. The department noted that while the black population had steadily increased in Ward 4 over the past two decades, subsequent redistrictings had decreased the black population “in order to forestall the creation of a majority black district.” The letter of objection concluded it was “implicit” that “the proposed plan was designed with the purpose to limit and retrogress the increased black voting strength in Ward 4, as well as in the city as a whole.” (8) A subsequent court ordered plan remedied the vote dilution in Ward 4. (9) But in the absence of Section 5, elections would have gone forward under a plan in which purposeful discrimination was “implicit,” and which could only have been challenged in time consuming vote dilution litigation under Section 2, in which the minority plaintiffs would have borne the burden of proof and expense.

Charleston County, South Carolina: 2003-2004 In 2003, South Carolina enacted legislation adopting the identical method of elections for the board of trustees of the Charleston County School District that had earlier, in a case involving the county council, been found to dilute minority voting strength in violation of Section 2. (10) Under the pre-existing system, school board elections were non-partisan, multi-seat contests decided by plurality vote, which allowed minority voters the opportunity to “bullet vote,” or concentrate their votes on one or two candidates and elect them to office. That possibility would have been effectively eliminated under the proposed new partisan system.

In denying preclearance to the county’s submission, the Department of Justice concluded “[t]he proposed change would significantly impair the present ability of minority voters to elect candidates of choice to the school board and to participate fully in the political process.” The department noted further that:

every black member of the Charleston County delegation voted against the proposed change, some specifically citing the retrogressive nature of the change. Our investigation also reveals that the retrogressive nature of this change is not only recognized by black members of the delegation, but is recognized by other citizens in Charleston County, both elected and unelected. (11)

Section 5 thus prevented the state from implementing a new and retrogressive voting practice, one which everyone understood was adopted to dilute black voting strength and insure white control of the school board.

Georgia Redistricting: 1982-1983 A three-judge court in the District of Columbia denied preclearance to Georgia’s infamous 1980 congressional redistricting plan finding that it was adopted with “a discriminatory purpose in violation of Section 5.” (12) The decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court. (13)

Other Examples Numerous other Section 5 objections are discussed in detail in this report. The objections in Florida include: state restrictions on registration and voting (1998). The objections in Georgia include: Adel, annexations (1982); Augusta, high school diploma requirement & annexations (1987); Augusta, date of referendum (1988); Augusta, consolidation (1989); Bibb County, special election (1988); Butler, majority vote requirement (1992); Clay County, candidate high school diploma requirement (1993); College Park, redistricting (1983); East Dublin, numbered posts and majority vote requirement (1991); Glynn County, consolidation (1982 & 1984); Griffin, redistricting (1985); Hinesville, majority vote requirement (1991); Jesup, redistricting and numbered posts and majority vote requirement (1986); Kingsland, numbered posts (1983); La Grange, redistricting (1993 & 1994); Lamar County, redistricting (1986); Lumber City, numbered posts and majority vote requirement (1988 & 1989); Lyons, redistricting (1985); Macon, deannexation (1987); Marion County, redistricting (2002); Millen, relocation of polling place (1995); Newnan, redistricting (1984); Newton, numbered posts (1997); Putnam County, redistricting (2002); Randolph County, redistricting (1993); Rome, staggered terms (1987); Sumter County, redistricting (1982); Tignall, numbered posts, staggered terms, and majority vote requirement (2000); Waynesboro, majority vote requirement (1994); Wrens, majority vote requirement (1986); and Wrightsville, relocation of polling place (1992). Objections in Louisiana include: state photo ID requirement (1994); and St. Francisville, redistricting (1993). Objections in Mississippi include: statewide dual registration (1997); and Perry County, redistricting (1991). Objections in North Carolina include: Ahoskie, annexations (1989); Edgecomb County, residency districts (1984); Laurinburg, annexations (1994); Martin County, residency districts (1986); Mt. Olive, redistricting (1994); and Rocky Mount, annexations (1984). The objections in South Carolina include: state legislative redistricting (1994); Batesburg, majority vote requirement (1986); Batesburg- Leesville, majority vote requirement (1993); Clinton, annexations (2002); Edgefield County, redistricting (1984); Edgefield County school district, redistricting (1987); Elloree, staggered terms and majority vote requirement (1984); Hemingway, annexations (1994); Johnston, redistricting (1992 & 1993); Orangeburg, redistricting (1985 & 1992); Sumter County, annexations (1985 & 1986); and Sumter County, redistricting (2002).

II. THERE IS A CONTINUING PATTERN OF BLOC VOTING AND RACIAL POLARIZATION IN THE COVERED JURISDICTIONS One of the most sobering facts to emerge from this report, as well as from the decisions in other cases, is the continuing presence of racially polarized voting. While much progress has been made in minority registration and office holding, the persistence of racial bloc voting shows that race remains dynamic in the political process, particularly in the covered jurisdictions. A few examples will suffice.

Racially Polarized Voting in South Carolina: 1984-2004 The three-judge court in Burton v. Sheheen, decided in 1992, relied upon the stipulation of the parties “that since 1984 there is evidence of racially polarized voting in South Carolina.” (14) A subsequent three-judge court in Smith v. Beasley, decided in 1996, found that “[i]n South Carolina, voting has been, and still is, polarized by race. This voting pattern is general throughout the state.” (15) In Colleton County Council v. McConnell, decided in 2002, the three-judge court made similar findings: “[v]oting in South Carolina continues to be racially polarized to a very high degree in all regions of the state and in both primary and general elections.” (16) In 2004, the court of appeals affirmed the finding of a district court in South Carolina “that voting in Charleston County Council elections is severely and characteristically polarized along racial lines.” (17)

Racially Polarized Voting in Indian Country: 1986-2004 In invalidating South Dakota’s 2000 legislative redistricting plan as diluting Indian voting strength in the area of the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservations, the court found “‘legally significant’ white bloc voting.” (18)

The court struck down at-large elections in Blaine County, Montana, finding that racially polarized voting “made it impossible for an American Indian to succeed in an at-large election.” (19) In invalidating at-large elections in Big Horn County, the court made similar findings that “there is racial bloc voting,” and “there is evidence that race is a factor in the minds of voters in making voting decisions.” (20) Racially Polarized Voting in Georgia: 2002 The District Court for the District of Columbia, in a Section 5 preclearance action involving Georgia’s legislative redistricting plan, found there were areas of the state where “white voters consistently vote against the preferred candidates of African Americans.” (21)

Racially Polarized Voting in Tennessee: 1993-1994 A three-judge court found that in West Tennessee there is “a high level of white bloc voting which usually enables the majority to defeat the black community’s candidate of choice,” and that racial polarization is so extreme that “black candidates cannot expect to succeed in majority-white districts.” (22)

Another court found in 1994 that “the level of racial bloc voting is increasing in Hamilton County making it more difficult than ever for a black to win a countywide judicial office.” (23)

1 Nick Kotz, Judgment Days. Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Laws that Changed America (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2005), p. 324. 2 President Ronald Reagan, Remarks on Signing the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982, June 29, 1982, Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, published at: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1982/62982b.htm 3 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. A voting change has a discriminatory effect under Section 5 if it causes a “retrogression” in minority voting strength. Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976). 4 S.Rep. No. 97-417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 10(1982). 5 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973b(f)(4) and aa-1a. 6 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973d, e, f & k. 7 The report discusses only those cases initiated, or participated in, by the ACLU Voting Rights Project, and does not include litigation brought independently by ACLU state affiliates, unless specifically noted. This report also discusses non-litigation interventions engaged in by the ACLU to protect the ability of minority voters to elect representatives of choice. 8 J. Michael Wiggins, Acting Assistant Attorney General, to Al Grieshaber Jr., September 23, 2002. 9 Wright v. City of Albany, Georgia, 306 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (M.D. Ga. 2003). 10 United States v. Charleston County and Moultrie v. Charleston County Council, 316 F. Supp. 2d 268 (D. S.C. 2003), aff’d 365 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. den’d, 125 S. Ct. 606 (2004). 11 R. Alexander Acosta, Assistant Attorney General, to C. Havird Jones, Jr., February 26, 2004. 12 Busbee v. Smith, 549 F. Supp. 494, 517 (D. D.C. 1982). 13 Busbee v. Smith, 549 U.S. 1166 (1983). 14 Burton v. Sheheen, 793 F. Supp. 1329, 1357-58 (D. S.C. 1992). 15 Smith v. Beasley, 946 F. Supp. 1174, 1202 (D.S.C. 1996). 16 Colleton County Council v. McConnell, 201 F. Supp. 2d 618, 641 (D.S.C. 2002). 17 Moultrie v. Charleston County Council, 365 F.3d 341, 350 (4th Cir. 2004). 18 Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, 336 F. Supp. 2d 976, 1017 (D.S.D. 2004). 19 United States v. Blaine County, Montana, 363 F.3d 897, 914 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. den’d, Blaine County v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1824 (2005). 20 Windy Boy v. County of Big Horn, 647 F. Supp. 1002, 1013 D. Mont. 1986). 21 Georgia v. Ashcroft, 195 F. Supp. 2d 25, 31 (D. D.C. 2002). 22 RWTAAAC v. McWherter, 836 F. Supp. 453, 458, 462 (W.D. Tenn 1993). 23 Cousin v. McWherter, 840 F. Supp. 1210, 1215 (E.D. Tenn. 1994).

Related Issues

• Voting Rights

Stay Informed

Every month, you'll receive regular roundups of the most important civil rights and civil liberties developments. Remember: a well-informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.

By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.

• Teacher Opportunities
• AP U.S. Government Key Terms
• Bureaucracy & Regulation
• Campaigns & Elections
• Civil Rights & Civil Liberties
• Comparative Government
• Constitutional Foundation
• Criminal Law & Justice
• Economics & Financial Literacy
• English & Literature
• Environmental Policy & Land Use
• Executive Branch
• Federalism and State Issues
• Foreign Policy
• Gun Rights & Firearm Legislation
• Immigration
• Interest Groups & Lobbying
• Judicial Branch
• Legislative Branch
• Political Parties
• Science & Technology
• Social Services
• State History
• Supreme Court Cases
• U.S. History
• World History

Log-in to bookmark & organize content - it's free!

• Bell Ringers
• Lesson Plans
• Featured Resources

Bell Ringer: 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments

13th, 14th and 15th amendments.

Professor Allen Guelzo and Jeffrey Rosen talk about the 13th,14th and 15th Amendments.

Description

Gettysburg College Director Allen Guelzo talks about the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Bell Ringer Assignment

• What does the 13th amendment establish? What problem did this present?
• Explain the rule that was established in the 14th amendment.
• What did the 15th amendment establish?
• Explain the relationship among these three amendments.

Additional Resource

This lesson explores the expansion of voting rights in the United States through different Constitutional amendments and laws. It also applies these lessons to current issues relating to voting such as voter ID laws, felons and voting rights for the District of Columbia.

Participants

• Civil Rights
• Jus Sanguinis

Voting Rights Throughout United States History

Voting rights in the United States have not always been equally accessible. African Americans and women of all ethnicities have fought, and continue to fight, especially hard to have their voices heard.

Voter Registration Drive at the 1973 Black Expo

Voting largely left out nonwhite men and women, regardless of color, for much of American history. This voter registration drive at the Black Expo in Chicago, Illinois, took place just eight years after the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed in 1973.

Photograph from John White/U.S. National Archives/Alamy Images

The rules for voting in the United States have changed over the years. While states have always determined requirements for voting throughout American history, the federal government has taken several actions that have changed those requirements. This is the result of many people campaigning for decades to make the voting process more just and equal.

Today, in order to vote people must be U.S. citizens, be 18 years of age or older, and be residents of the state in which they vote. However, this was not always the case.

Voting After The American Revolution

Following the American Revolution, the new country transitioned from being under British rule to developing its own government. After trying and failing to use the Articles of Confederation, the country adopted the U.S. Constitution in 1787. According to Article 1 of the Constitution, the requirements for federal elections were handled at a state level. The right to suffrage , or the power to vote, was granted exclusively to white men who owned land. Because the country was so young, the founders believed these men's economic ties to the country were a valuable trait.

In the early 1800s, some men supported allowing more people to vote. Following a period without political parties or choices for voters, the country returned to a two-party political system in the 1820s. There was also new interest in suffrage. White men continued to move west seeking available land, but many did not feel that property ownership should be required to vote. Many states removed that requirement, opening the door to voting for all white men.

Voting After The Civil War

While the country celebrated expanded voting rights for white men of all economic levels, voting still left out many people. Women and black Americans were still unable to vote. After the American Civil War in the 1860s, the Radical Republicans controlled Congress. These men were primarily white Northerners who wanted to restrict the power of the South.

As a result of the 13th  Amendment , passed in 1865, many free black Americans lived in the South as well as in the North. Radical Republicans saw this as a way to help their own cause and to extend voting rights to newly free black men. In 1870, the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed. It said that the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

While the 15th Amendment granted black men the right to vote, it did not address citizenship. The 14th Amendment of 1869 classified anyone born in the United States as a citizen and granted those citizens equal protection. This amendment became the basis for citizenship. The Indian Citizen Act of 1924 allowed indigenous Americans to vote, but did not enforce the right. It took another 40 years for all U.S. states to grant full suffrage to indigenous Americans.

Discrimination In Voting Continued

Many legal cases have cited the 14th Amendment. It was also at the center the civil rights movement, which challenged discrimination and voter suppression black Americans faced.

Black Americans faced Supreme Court challenges (like Plessy v. Ferguson in 1898) that defended separation of the races. They also faced challenges at the polls. Legal state discrimination included requiring blacks to pay a poll tax and pass a literacy test before they could vote. Many also faced threats of violence, lynching and other scare tactics.

The federal government finally reinforced black Americans' right to vote in the 1960s. Many people participated in speeches, sit-ins and marches supporting voting rights for blacks. The 24th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 protected the right of black Americans and others to vote.

The Fight For Women's Suffrage

Women were important opponents to slavery in the mid 19th century. They saw similarities in how enslaved people and women were treated during the period. A women's rights movement developed around the 1840s under the leadership of women including Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. At the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, they introduced the "Declaration of Sentiments." That document included a change to the Declaration of Independence, declaring that "all men and women are created equal." This was an important step toward women's suffrage in the United States.

Wyoming was the first state to give women the right to vote in 1869. It was not until 1920 that white women were granted the ability to vote nationwide. African American women continued to face obstacles to vote for many years following the 19th  Amendment . Progressive reforms and women's work in factories during World War I helped drive support. The National American Woman Suffrage Association's constant protests, campaigning and marches finally gained support from prominent politicians such as President Woodrow Wilson. It led more women to become involved in politics and government.

Lowering The Voting Age

Through the 1960s, the voting age in the United States was 21. America was fighting a war in Vietnam at that time, and many men aged 18 and older were being drafted into the military. Americans recognized it was unfair that men and women old enough to go to war were not able to vote.

In 1971, the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age for U.S. citizens by three years. Today, 18-year-olds across the country have the right to vote.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Women’s Suffrage

Activities will help students:

• understand that until the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified, many states denied women the right to vote
• use primary and secondary sources to understand the ways that women advocated for the right to vote
• evaluate the importance of the federal government in securing women's right to vote
• Why did so many states deny women the right to vote? Why was women’s suffrage legal in some states?
• What strategies did women use to win the right to vote? Which were most successful? What made them successful?
• What role did state governments play in extending voting rights to women? What role did the federal government play?
• The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States,  by Alexander Keyssar. Rev. ed. New York: Basic Books, 2009.
• Iron Jaw Angels , a HBO film
• Why Women Couldn’t Vote
• Suffragists Change Tactics in Fight for Equal Suffrage transcript
• Strategy Cards
• Sandra Day O’Connor Views Alice Paul   transcript
• " Votes for Women!/The Woman’s Reason "
• " Women in the Home "
• Map of Woman Suffrage Before 1920

This lesson is the fourth in a series called  Expanding Voting Rights . The overall goal of the series is for students to explore the complicated history of voting rights in the United States. Two characteristics of that history stand out: First, in fits and starts, more and more Americans have gained the right to vote. Second, over time, the federal government's role in securing these rights has expanded considerably.

Please note this lesson was originally written to be used with NBC Learn videos, but those videos are no longer available.  The transcripts to those videos are linked in the materials list.

This lesson has students explore how women succeeded in gaining the right to vote in this country. Until 1920, most states limited the right to vote to men (and in many states only white men). Over a period of about 75 years, a movement of American women used nonviolent tactics at both the state and federal levels to demand their right to vote. The outcome was the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1920.

suffrage [ suhf -rij] ( noun ) the right to vote

suffragist [ suhf - r uh -jist] ( noun ) someone who wants to extend the right to vote; frequently used to refer to women

abridge [ uh - brij ] (verb)  to deprive; to limit 

1. For some background information, read  Why Women Couldn’t Vote . It explains that in the early 1900s, the United States lacked a coherent national policy guaranteeing women the right to vote. This reading will prepare you for a more in-depth look at the women’s suffrage movement.

2. Different groups of women used different strategies to gain the right to vote. Read Suffragists Change Tactics  from the NBC Learn archives.What are the three different phases of the suffrage movement identified by historian Sarah Chinn in the video?  (Note: Moral persuasion, state-by-state and federal amendment. Have students write each one on chart paper and post each chart in a different corner of the room.)

3. ( Note: Have students count off by threes. ) Students who are "ones" go to the corner with moral persuasion sign, the “twos” go to the state-by-state sign and the “threes” to the federal amendment sign. (Note: Give each group the  Strategy Card  that corresponds to the strategy identified in their corner. If you have enough computers in the classroom for each group to work on one, have groups work where they are. If you don’t, print a copy of the appropriate documents/transcripts ahead of time and give it to the group.) Read your group’s strategy card and discuss it together to see if you understand it. To get more information, view/read any sources identified on your group’s card, and do any additional research you need so that you have a solid understanding of your group’s beliefs and actions. Create a presentation for the class showing how your group went about trying to win votes for women. Which group might picket, march or chant in public places to draw attention to their cause? What would other groups do? Keep in mind that you want the rest of the class to understand the answers to these two questions: 1) What arguments did your group make about why women should have the right to vote? 2) How did they present those arguments?

4. Form groups of three, with each group having a representative from each of the three strategies (that is, one person from a moral persuasion group, one from a federal amendment group and one from a state-by-state group). Staying in character, discuss your group’s position on women’s suffrage and strategies. Make a  three-way Venn diagram  to clarify what you have in common and how you differ. Study the diagram together. Have each person take a turn explaining why she either would or would not be willing to work with the other two groups to gain the right to vote. Tell the rest of the class about your group’s decision and how you reached it.

5. Read the  Nineteenth Amendment . Plan a celebration of its ratification, with each of the three groups contributing. Be creative with your contributions! They might include, for example, decorations, a speech, a song or costumes.

6. Finally, after the festivities, write an essay or prepare a presentation that addresses this question: Do you think women would have gotten the right to vote if the federal government had not proposed a constitutional amendment? Why or why not?

Activities and embedded assessments address the following standards from  Common Core State Standards for  English Language Arts .

• Google Classroom

Sign in to save these resources.

Login or create an account to save resources to your bookmark collection.

Learning for Justice in the South

When it comes to investing in racial justice in education, we believe that the South is the best place to start. If you’re an educator, parent or caregiver, or community member living and working in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana or Mississippi, we’ll mail you a free introductory package of our resources when you join our community and subscribe to our magazine.

Get the Learning for Justice Newsletter

United States Constitution: Amendments 15, 23, 24 & 26. Voting Rights

• U.S. Constitution text
• The Preamble
• Article 1. The Legislative Branch
• Article 2. The Executive Branch
• Article 3. The Judicial Branch
• Articles 4-7. Making the Federal System Work
• Amendment 1. Religion
• Amendment 1. Speech
• Amendment 1. The Press
• Amendment 1. Assembly & Petition
• Amendments 2 & 3
• Amendments 4 & 5
• Amendments 6, 7 & 8
• Amendments 9 & 10
• Political System Amendments
• Amendment 25. Presidential Succession
• Amendment 13. Abolishing Slavery
• Amendent 14. Due Process & Equal Protection
• Amendments 15, 23, 24 & 26. Voting Rights
• Amendment 19. Women's Voting Rights
• Taxes & Alcohol

15th Amendment. African-American Voting Rights

The 15th amendment.

Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

• Section 2 of the 14th Amendment had extended the vote to all "male" citizens 21 years of age.
• The 14th Amendment did not explicitly grant the vote to African-American men.
• It did decrease congressional representation for State that denied the vote to African-American males.
• The 15th Amendment guaranteed that the vote could not be denied "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Voting Restrictions

Ways the States Tried to Deny African-Americans Their Voting Rights

• "Grandfather Clauses": If your grandfather couldn't vote, you had to pass a test or pay a fee to voter. This was designed so that only white men could vote, since only white men had the right to vote before the 15th Amendment.
• The ability to read and write.
• Property requirements.
• African-Americans excluded from political party conventions and primaries.

American Voting Rights history

• 1788. Voting left to States by the U.S. Constitution .
• 1868. 14th Amendment granted voting to all U.S.-born and naturalized males.
• 1870. 15th Amendment grants black men the right to vote.
• 1915.  Guinn v United States : Supreme Court struck down the "grandfather clause" as an exemption to voting.
• 1920. 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote.
• 1924. Native Americans granted the right to vote .
• 1939.  Lane v Wilson : A one-time 12-day voter registration was unconstitutional.
• 1943. Chinese Exclusion Act  repealed, granting citizenship to Chinese-Americans.
• 1953.  Terry v Adams : The 15th Amendment applied to any election where a public official was chosen.
• 1961. 23rd Amendment : Washington D.C. residents granted the right to vote in Presidential elections.
• 1964. 24th Amendment bans Poll Taxes.
• 1965.  The Voting Rights Act.
• 1966. South Carolina v Katzenbach : Upheld the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
• 1971. 26th Amendment granted the vote to 18-year-olds.
• 1982. Voting Rights Act of 1965 extended for 25 years.
• 1984.   Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act passed.
• 1993.  The National Voter Registration Act
• 2000.  Rice v Cayetano : Hawaii could not limit the voter to qualified "Hawaiians" for State offices, dealing with Hawaiian Affairs.
• 2002. Help America Vote Act passed.
• 2013.  Shelby County v Holder : Ruled Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 unconstitutional. 
• 2016. Evenwel v Abbott : Legislation districting can be based on total population. 
• 2016.  Harris v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission : A redistricting commission can use a slight variance of population in drawing legislative districts.

Four Voting Rights Leaders

Medgar Evers  (1925-1963) Photograph cropped from a Public Domain

Fannie Lou Hamer  (1917-1977) Public Domain

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  (1929-1968) Public Domain

John Lewis  ( 1940-2020) Public Domain

Voting Rights

Movies and Television

23rd Amendment. DC Voting

The 23rd amendment.

Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.

Before 1960, the Constitution did not give the residents of the District of Columbia the right to vote for any Federal official. It was the Capital. When the Federal government moved to Washington, D.C., there was a very small population. By 1960, the Capital had more residents than thirteen States. With the ratification of the 23rd Amendment, residents of D.C. could vote for the Presidents. Under the 23rd Amendment, the District of Columbia receives three electoral votes for President regardless of population. This was no more than the smallest State.  They still do not have the right to vote for a Senator or a Congress person.

"Here, in the capital of democracy, lives one of the largest blocs of disenfranchised voters in the world."--former Mayor Anthony Williams.

Source:  The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution  (p.258).  

Amendment 24. Ban on Poll Tax

The 24th amendment.

Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

A voter cannot be charged a tax or any other tax in order to vote in a Federal election.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 extended that prohibitions to State elections as well.

26th Amendment. Voting Age 18

The 26th amendment.

Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

This Amendment lowered the voting age for all American citizens to 18 years old.

This Amendment was the fastest to ratify. The Amendment covered both national elections as well as State and local elections. It was ratified during the Vietnam War when young men were being drafted to serve in the military. It was argued that, if young people 18 years old had to fight America's wars, they should have the right to vote for those making the decisions to send them out to fight.

Full Sail Library Guides

• Black Lives, Black History : Guide to research and resources for African American History.
• The Sixties: African-American Civil Rights

Additional References

Harper, T. (2016).  The complete idiot's guide to the U.S. Constitution . Alpha Books, a member of Penguin Random House LLC.  Monk, L. R. & Ginsburg, R. B. (2018).  The Bill of Rights: a user's guid e. Hachette Books.  Monk, L. R. (2015).  The words we live by: your annotated guide to the Constitution.  Hachette Books. 

• << Previous: Amendent 14. Due Process & Equal Protection
• Next: Amendment 19. Women's Voting Rights >>
• Last Updated: Sep 13, 2021 9:32 AM
• URL: https://fullsail.libguides.com/constitution

Voting Rights

Lesson plan.

Explore the history of voting rights in the United States through an interactive PowerPoint presentation highlighting landmark changes. Following the presentation and class discussion, students apply the new knowledge of how voting legislation evolved to individual scenarios through a class activity. 

Get more great material on Voting Rights in our  Google Slide Deck

Love this lesson?  Explore all of our free election curriculum and teaching resources at our  Election Headquarters . 

iCivics en español! Student and class materials for this lesson are available in Spanish.

Pedagogy Tags

Teacher Resources

Get access to lesson plans, teacher guides, student handouts, and other teaching materials.

• Voting Rights_Student Docs.pdf
• Voting Rights_Teacher Guide.pdf
• Spanish_Voting Rights_Student Docs.pdf
• Spanish_Voting Rights_Teacher Docs.pdf

I find the materials so engaging, relevant, and easy to understand – I now use iCivics as a central resource, and use the textbook as a supplemental tool. The games are invaluable for applying the concepts we learn in class. My seniors LOVE iCivics.

Lynna Landry , AP US History & Government / Economics Teacher and Department Chair, California

Related Resources

A movement in the right direction (infographic).

Breaking Barriers: Constance Baker Motley

Campaign cash (infographic), campaigning: it's a process.

Candidate Evaluation

Candidate report card, cast your vote.

Civic Action and Change

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Civil War & Reconstruction

See how it all fits together.