How the right to vote grew: the voting amendments and the Voting Rights Act

Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet - Challenge Me

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Use this

   Cards A to E on the Voting Rights Act and preclearance (the excerpts are exact; card E is made up). Card A, "The Fifteenth Amendment (1870), Section 2". Who made it: Congress proposed it, and the states ratified it on February 3, 1870. For whom: the states and the people. Why: to give Congress the power to enforce the ban on denying the vote because of race. Excerpt: "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Card B, "South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966)". Who made it: Chief Justice Earl Warren, for the Supreme Court. When: March 7, 1966. For whom: the parties, Congress, the states and other courts. Why: to decide whether Congress could pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Excerpt 1: "Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits." Excerpt 2: "Congress may use any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination in voting." Card C, "Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the majority". Who made it: Chief Justice John Roberts, for a Supreme Court that voted 5 to 4. When: June 25, 2013. For whom: the parties, Congress, the states and other courts. Why: to decide whether the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which chose the places that needed federal approval (preclearance) for voting changes, could still be used. Excerpt 1: "Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically." Excerpt 2: "In the first decade after enactment of §5, the Attorney General objected to 14.2 percent of proposed voting changes." Excerpt 3: "In the last decade before reenactment, the Attorney General objected to a mere 0.16 percent." Excerpt 4: "Congress did not use the record it compiled to shape a coverage formula grounded in current conditions. It instead reenacted a formula based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relation to the present day." Excerpt 5: "Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in §2. We issue no holding on §5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions." Card D, "Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Justice Ginsburg dissenting". Who made it: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. When: June 25, 2013. For whom: the parties, Congress, the states and other courts. Why: to explain why she would have upheld the 2006 reauthorization. Excerpt 1: "In fact, Congress found there were more DOJ objections between 1982 and 2004 (626) than there were between 1965 and the 1982 reauthorization (490)." Excerpt 2: "Although covered jurisdictions account for less than 25 percent of the country's population, the Katz study revealed that they accounted for 56 percent of successful §2 litigation since 1982." Excerpt 3: "Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet." Card E, "Two made-up cases". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Case 1: After Shelby County, County Q, which Section 4(b) had covered, moves three polling places farther from the neighborhoods where most of its Black voters live. Case 2: A writer says the fall in objections from 14.2 percent to 0.16 percent shows preclearance was no longer needed.

2. 1.

   Pia compares cards C and D on objections to voting changes. Which claim about the objection figures is best supported?

   • Preclearance objections stopped mattering after 1982, since the rate in the last decade was a mere 0.16 percent
   • The rate fell from 14.2 to 0.16 percent, so discrimination in voting rules fell by about 99 percent in those decades
   • Objections rose over time: 490 before 1982 and 626 after, so the Attorney General objected more often in the later period
   • Objections ran near 29 a year before 1982 and near 28 a year after, so a falling rate does not show fewer objections
3. 2.

   Roberts says the formula used 40-year-old facts. Ren answers Roberts with card D. What is the strongest objection?

   • The 56 percent shows covered places were singled out unfairly, since they held less than a quarter of the population
   • Congress compiled a huge record in 2006, so the Court had no power to ask whether the formula fit current conditions
   • The umbrella line shows preclearance is why discrimination fell, so any formula covering those places must stay as written
   • The formula tracked where §2 wins concentrated: under 25 percent of the population but 56 percent of the wins
4. 3.

   In Case 1 on card E, County Q was covered. Tala applies card C. Which statement about federal review after the ruling is strongest?

   • No federal rule applies to the move, since the Court struck down the Act's permanent ban on discrimination in voting
   • Preclearance still applies to County Q, since the Court issued no holding on §5 itself, just on the formula
   • The Attorney General alone may sue under §2, so County Q can be challenged if the federal government chooses
   • Formula-based preclearance is gone unless Congress writes a new formula, but §2's ban still applies to the move
5. 4.

   Case 2 on card E says the fall in objections shows preclearance was no longer needed. Ari looks for missing evidence. What would most challenge the writer?

   • Whether covered places withdrew or changed proposed rules after being warned that an objection was likely
   • What officials in covered places said about their own motives, since they were there when the rules changed
   • How the justices voted in Shelby County, since a 5 to 4 vote shows how reliable the figures are
   • How many voting changes covered places proposed in each decade, compared with the 626 objections in 1982-2004
6. 5.

   Bo combines cards A to D. What do Roberts and Ginsburg appear to share, according to the cards?

   • Roberts denies that Congress has any enforcement power, while Ginsburg alone relies on Section 2 of the 15th Amendment
   • Both agree discrimination in voting has ended, and differ on whether Congress may keep the Act in force
   • Both accept the 2006 formula as fitting current conditions; they differ on whether Section 5 is wise to keep in force
   • Both accept that Congress may enforce the 15th by legislation; they differ on whether current conditions justify the formula

7. Use this

   Cards A to F on poll taxes and the voting age (the excerpts are exact; card F is made up). Card A, "The Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971)". Who made it: Congress proposed it on March 23, 1971, and the states ratified it by July 1, 1971. For whom: the states and the people. Why: to set a national floor for the voting age. Section 1: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." Card B, "Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), Justice Black". Who made it: Justice Hugo Black, announcing the judgments of the Court. When: December 21, 1970. For whom: the parties, Congress, the states and other courts. Why: to decide whether Congress could lower the voting age to 18. Excerpt 1 (the vote): "For reasons expressed in separate opinions, my Brothers DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, WHITE, and MARSHALL join me in concluding that Congress can enfranchise 18-year-old citizens in national elections, but dissent from the judgment that Congress cannot extend the franchise to 18-year-old citizens in state and local elections. For reasons expressed in separate opinions, my Brothers THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HARLAN, STEWART, and BLACKMUN join me in concluding that Congress cannot interfere with the age for voters set by the States for state and local elections." Excerpt 2 (Article I, Section 4, as Black quotes it): "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." Excerpt 3: "I would hold, as have a long line of decisions in this Court, that Congress has ultimate supervisory power over congressional elections." Excerpt 4: "No function is more essential to the separate and independent existence of the States and their governments than the power to determine within the limits of the Constitution the qualifications of their own voters for state, county, and municipal offices and the nature of their own machinery for filling local public offices." Card C, "Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966), the majority". Who made it: Justice William O. Douglas, for a Supreme Court that voted 6 to 3. When: March 24, 1966. For whom: the parties, Virginia, other states and other courts. Why: to decide whether Virginia's poll tax for state elections was valid. Excerpt 1: "Notions of what constitutes equal treatment for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause do change. This Court in 1896 held that laws providing for separate public facilities for white and Negro citizens did not deprive the latter of the equal protection and treatment that the Fourteenth Amendment commands." Excerpt 2: "When, in 1954--more than a half-century later--we repudiated the 'separate-but-equal' doctrine of Plessy as respects public education we stated: 'In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written.'" Excerpt 3: "a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard." Excerpt 4: "Our conclusion, like that in Reynolds v. Sims, is founded not on what we think governmental policy should be, but on what the Equal Protection Clause requires." Card D, "Harper, Justice Black dissenting". Who made it: Justice Hugo Black. When: March 24, 1966. For whom: the parties, Virginia, other states and other courts. Why: to explain why he would have kept the 1937 ruling in Breedlove. Excerpt 1: "Since the Breedlove and Butler cases were decided the Federal Constitution has not been amended in the only way it could constitutionally have been, that is, as provided in Article V of the Constitution." Excerpt 2: "It should be pointed out at once that the Court's decision is to no extent based on a finding that the Virginia law as written or as applied is being used as a device or mechanism to deny Negro citizens of Virginia the right to vote on account of their color." Card E, "Harper, Justice Harlan dissenting". Who made it: Justice John Harlan, joined by Justice Stewart. When: March 24, 1966. For whom: the parties, Virginia, other states and other courts. Why: to explain why the Court should have left poll taxes to the states and Congress. Excerpt: "The final demise of state poll taxes, already totally proscribed by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment with respect to federal elections and abolished by the States themselves in all but four States with respect to state elections, is perhaps in itself not of great moment." Card F, "Four made-up cases". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Case 1: A made-up law lowers the voting age to 16 for elections to the House of Representatives only. Case 2: A student says the Twenty-sixth Amendment overturned Oregon v. Mitchell. Case 3: A writer says the 100-day ratification of the Twenty-sixth Amendment shows how little states resisted it. Case 4: A student says Harlan's count of four states means Harper changed very little.

8. 6.

   Black says Harper gave the clause a new meaning. Jun answers Black with card C. What is the strongest reply?

   • Black joined Breedlove himself in 1937, so his dissent shows a change of mind, not a flaw in Douglas's reading
   • Four States still taxed voters, so the ruling was small and cannot have given the clause a new meaning
   • The Fourteenth Amendment is a living text, so the Court may update any clause without limit when policy changes over time
   • Brown refused to turn the clock back to 1868 or 1896, so reading the clause by what it requires today is not a new meaning
9. 7.

   Case 1 on card F lowers the voting age to 16 for House elections. Kira applies cards A and B. Which statement is best supported?

   • Black's reasoning bars it: he says the qualifications of voters in any election, federal ones too, belong to the States
   • It is valid: five justices held in Mitchell that Congress controls any voter qualification in federal elections
   • Black's Section 4 reasoning backs it for federal elections; four justices disagreed, and the 26th is silent below 18
   • The 26th bars it: by naming 18 and older, it sets the voting age at 18 for any election and forbids a lower age
10. 8.

    Case 2 on card F says the Twenty-sixth Amendment overturned Oregon v. Mitchell. Luz tests the claim against cards A and B. What is the best verdict?

    • Partly: its words reversed the state and local half, but the federal half, upheld by five justices, already stood
    • Fully: the amendment replaced the whole ruling, so Congress's power over federal voting ages was removed along with it
    • Fully: the amendment adopted Black's view that States keep the age rules for state and local elections
    • Not so: Mitchell was about a statute, and an amendment does not reverse any part of a ruling about a statute
11. 9.

    Case 3 on card F says the 100-day ratification shows States barely resisted. Milo looks for missing evidence. What would most challenge the writer?

    • What the amendment's sponsors in Congress said, since they know why States moved so quickly on the question
    • How many States voted against ratification compared with those that voted for it, in each of their legislatures
    • Whether Georgia and Kentucky had lowered their own age earlier, since earlier laws show how those States felt
    • Whether States facing two voting ages after Mitchell wanted the question settled fast, whatever they thought of 18
12. 10.

    Case 4 on card F says Harlan's count of four States means Harper changed very little. Noah tests the claim against cards C to E. What is the best verdict?

    • Supported: Harlan, who dissented, admits the tax was already barred for federal elections, so little was left
    • Supported: if just four States still taxed voters, the Court's ruling reached almost nothing in practice in 1966
    • Weakly supported: four States still taxed voters, but a count of States misses voter numbers, and Harper reached any fee
    • Unsupported: Harlan's point is that the Court acted too late, so he thought Harper changed a great deal