Mattie Di Giovanni and Misia Duggan
Investigation 9: Voting Rights Legal Cases
During the lecture, we looked at a number of legal cases concerning voting rights, both from before the Voting Rights Act was passed and after. In this Investigation, you will look a little deeper at some of these cases, as well as the legal provisions of the Voting Rights Act itself.
Part 1. Describe the circumstances surrounding each of these Supreme Court cases. Please include:
- the background to the case
- the decisions made at the lower court levels
- the U.S. Supreme Court decision and the arguments made on both sides
- the resulting consequences of the decision on voting law
- a) Baker v. Carr (1962) regarding whether differently sized state legislative districts violated the 14th amendment
Charles W. Baker sued Tennessee, claiming that the 1901 law to properly apportion Tennessee had been ignored, nd rural areas were getting more representatives than more urban places. Baker won the case 6-2. This case didn’t end there, though, as it made the Court reconsider their role in redistricting, which they use to believe was not in their jurisdiction. Justice Brennan used the Fourteenth Amendment which cited equal protection in moving forward with reapportionment laws.
- b) Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960) regarding whether Tuskegee city officials had redrawn the city’s boundaries unconstitutionally to ensure the election of white candidates in the city’s political races
Basically, the Alabama Legislatures in 1960 tried to redraw the lines of Tuskegee Alabama so that it excluded African Americans from city lines. This violated the 15th amendment which states that voter rights should not be violated based on race, color or previous servitude. The court was heard in the U.S. District Court in middle Alabama, and was dismissed by the judge saying that it was the states rights to redraw lines for the boundaries of election districts. Gomillion argued that the state was trying to keep black people out of power by grouping them together in one district and Lightfoot argued that the states were doing it to best serve the people of Alabama. The case however, still made it to the Supreme court where it was found in favor of Gomillion. The Justices believed that the odd shapes of the districts were made to keep black people out of political power.
- c) Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003) regarding whether the Georgia State Senate redistricting plan resulted in violation of voters’ rights in contravention of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
When the 2000 Census came around, Georgia realized they had 13 districts largely populated with African American voters. In an attempt to spread them out more, and therefore increase their voice overall in Georgia, the Senate redrew the map so that these districts were broken up and spread out around the map. It passed the Georgia Senate and the House of Representatives, and was signed into law by the Governor in 2001. The District Court said it violated the 1965 section 5 of the voting rights act, and they could not pass it. Georgia then brought the case to the Supreme Court which voted in favor of the state.
Part II
Describe how the “Coverage formula” in section 4 of the Voting Rights Act works.
- a) How is it determined which jurisdictions must receive pre-clearance?
This formula is set up to protect voters, its criteria for requiring states to get pre clearance of any new changes to voting laws. It’s meant to catch states that had a history of discriminatory voting laws. The first section of the formula is to restrict things like literacy test, or having the voter prove they are in good moral standing. The second section states that if the state has less than 50% of the voters registered who are of age to vote the state needs pre clearance to pass new laws.
- b) Which jurisdictions had to receive pre-clearance?
I’m fairly certain that all jurisdictions needed to receive pre clearance from the attorney general in order to change how the voting procedure is done.
- c) How has the coverage formula changed over the years? How has it affected which jurisdictions had to receive pre-clearance?
Some things that have been added over time were that voting discrimination was extended to large minority groups to make sure that they were not being tested either this was added in 1975. The bailout clause was added to the formula as well for jurisdictions seeking a bailout which requires the states to have met several requirements and not have had any issues for the last ten year time frame in order to qualify for a bailout.
