Selecteer een pagina

The bill was first considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose chair, Senator James Eastland (D-MS), opposed the legislation along with several other southern senators on the committee. To prevent the bill from dying in committee, Mansfield moved a motion requiring the judiciary committee to report the committee`s bill by April 9, which the Senate passed by an overwhelming majority of 67 to 13. [22]: 150 [41] During the committee`s consideration of the bill, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) attempted to amend the bill to prohibit voting taxes. Although the Twenty-fourth Amendment banning the use of voting taxes in federal elections was ratified a year earlier, Johnson`s government and the bill`s sponsors did not include a provision in the Election Rights Act prohibiting voting taxes in state elections because they feared the courts would criminalize the legislation as unconstitutional. [25]: 521 [30]: 285 In addition, by excluding head taxes from the definition of “tests or devices,” the coverage formula did not reach Texas or Arkansas, which mitigated opposition from influential congressional delegations from those two states. [25]: 521 Nevertheless, Kennedy`s amendment to ban voting taxes was passed by a 9-4 vote, with the support of liberal committee members. In response, Dirksen proposed a change that exempted any state from the coverage formula in which at least 60 percent of its eligible residents were registered to vote or who had a higher turnout than the national average in previous presidential elections. This amendment, which effectively exempted all states except Mississippi from reporting, was passed at a committee meeting at which three Liberal MPs were absent. Dirksen proposed to scrap the change if the ban on the voting tax was lifted. In the end, the bill was introduced by the committee on April 9 by a vote of 12 to 4 without recommendation. [22]: 152-153 Section 5[133] requires affected jurisdictions to obtain federal approval, known as “pre-approval,” before making changes to their election laws.

A covered court has the burden of proving that the change does not have as its object or effect discrimination based on race or the status of a minority language; If the jurisdiction does not meet this burden, the federal government will refuse prior approval and the change of jurisdiction will not take effect. The Supreme Court defined the scope of section 5 in Allen v. State Board of Election (1969),[134] which states that any change in the electoral practices of a court, even a minor one, must be subject to prior approval. [135] The Court also noted that if a court has not pre-approved its change in voting rights, private plaintiffs can sue jurisdiction in the plaintiff`s local district court before a panel of three judges. [e] In this Section 5 “Enforcement Measures”, a court considers whether the court has made a change in covered voting rights and, if so, whether the change has been pre-approved. If the court has not wrongly obtained prior authorization, the court will order the court to obtain prior authorization before implementing the change. However, the court cannot consider whether the amendment should be approved. [11] [69]: 128–129 [134]: 556 [137]: 23 voter registration campaigns also brought together African-American communities to work for a common cause. John Churchville registered voters when he came across two rival teen gangs fighting in Americus, Georgia. He entered the fight to stop her and recalls, “And they stopped.

I said, “This is what white people want you to do! Why are you doing this?! We are here to help you sign up so you can get real power and stop fighting against each other. They stopped fighting gang wars. We were able to recruit them to register first, then to negotiate a peace treaty and help us recruit people to register and vote. Prior to 2000, the “discriminatory purpose” of section 5 was understood as a discriminatory purpose, which is the same standard used to determine whether discrimination is unconstitutional. In Reno v. Bossier Parish (Bossier II Parish) (2000)[57], the Supreme Court expanded the regression standard and ruled that a vote change may have a “discriminatory purpose” under section 5, the change must have been implemented for a retrograde purpose. Therefore, a voting amendment aimed at discriminating against a protected minority was allowed under paragraph 5 as long as the amendment was not intended to reinforce the existing discrimination. [142]: 277–278 This amendment significantly reduced the number of cases where prior authorization was denied for discriminatory purposes. In 2006, Congress overthrew Boss parish II by amending Article 5 to explicitly define “purpose” to refer to “any discriminatory purpose.” [59]: 199–200, 207 [145] Courts may request prior authorization either through an “administrative prior authorization procedure” or a “judicial prior authorization procedure.” .