fbpx

Fifteenth Amendment Enforcement History

Origins and Ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment

The Fifteenth Amendment emerged after the Civil War when America faced integrating freed slaves into civic life. Congress was split on African American suffrage. Moderates prevailed, and the amendment passed on February 26, 1869, with ratification following on February 3, 1870. It banned race-based voting discrimination but didn't remove other qualifications.

Initially, Black men voted in large numbers and took public office. However, Southern states found loopholes. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses became common to circumvent the amendment. The Supreme Court failed to stop these laws in Giles v. Harris (1903). Real change didn't come until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The amendment had two major flaws:

  • Excluding women
  • Lacking immediate enforcement

Women remained sidelined until the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, and segregation laws ran rampant for decades.

Historical reenactment of the Fifteenth Amendment ratification ceremony

Early Enforcement and Challenges

The Fifteenth Amendment's early promise was quickly met with retaliation. Southern states crafted ways to sidestep its provisions through Jim Crow laws. Poll taxes priced out many Black voters, while literacy tests were designed to fail applicants. The "grandfather clause" allowed voting only if one's grandfather was eligible before the Civil War, excluding most Black men.

Violence and intimidation were common, with groups like the Ku Klux Klan using terror to suppress the Black vote. The legal system failed to enforce the amendment effectively. In Giles v. Harris, the Supreme Court refused to hold discriminatory laws unconstitutional. James v. Bowman further limited Congress's power to penalize those preventing Black people from voting.

Rare exceptions like Smith v. Allwright (1944) and Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960) showed glimmers of judicial intervention. However, significant change didn't occur until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

These struggles reveal a deeper issue: the clash between America's principles and their implementation. The challenge lies not just in passing laws, but in enforcing them against popular resistance.
Depiction of Jim Crow era voting obstacles

Photo by unseenhistories on Unsplash

The Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 came during a time of civic unrest and protests. It aimed to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment by banning discriminatory voting practices. The Act prohibited literacy tests and required federal oversight in areas with a history of voting discrimination.

The VRA's impact was significant. Voter registration among Black citizens in the South increased dramatically. In Mississippi, African American voter registration rose from 6.3% in 1964 to over 60% by 19691. The Act transformed America's democratic landscape, making it harder for politicians to rely on vote suppression.

However, the 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder weakened the VRA by removing the preclearance requirement. Many states quickly enacted restrictive laws affecting minority voters.

The VRA symbolizes both progress made and ongoing challenges in voting rights. It underscores that legislative victories require constant vigilance to prevent regression. The battle for equitable voting rights continues, demanding ongoing commitment to protect and expand the rights guaranteed by the Fifteenth Amendment.

Shelby County v. Holder and Its Aftermath

The 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder challenged the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This provision required certain states and local governments with a history of voting discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing their voting laws or practices.

Shelby County, Alabama, argued the preclearance requirement was outdated, while the federal government defended its necessity in preventing discriminatory practices. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, ruled in favor of Shelby County, stating that the preclearance formula was based on outdated data and failed to reflect current conditions.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent argued that removing the preclearance requirement was premature and could lead to a resurgence of discriminatory practices.

Aftermath of the Decision:

  • States previously covered by preclearance began enacting more restrictive voting laws
  • Stringent voter ID laws introduced
  • Reductions in early voting days
  • Voter roll purges implemented

Critics pointed out that these laws disproportionately affected minority voters. Studies have shown that stringent ID requirements and other restrictive measures have led to lower voter turnout among minority communities.1

The Shelby County decision weakened a crucial provision of the Voting Rights Act and signaled a retreat from the federal commitment to protect minority voting rights. It emboldened states to pass laws restricting access to the ballot box under the pretext of preventing fraud.

Illustration of the Supreme Court building with scales of justice

Modern Challenges and Legal Battles

Current challenges to voting rights include voter ID laws, felon disenfranchisement, and new obstructive tactics. These issues continue to impact the enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment.

Voter ID Laws:

Voter ID laws have become a contentious issue. Proponents argue they prevent voter fraud, while critics contend they disproportionately affect minority voters. In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter ID law, setting a precedent for similar measures in other states.

Felon Disenfranchisement:

Felon disenfranchisement affects millions of Americans, with state laws varying widely. This issue particularly impacts African American communities due to racial disparities in incarceration rates.2 The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in cases like Richardson v. Ramirez (1974) and Hunter v. Underwood (1985), but felon disenfranchisement laws remain entrenched in many states.

Legal Challenges and Advocacy:

Organizations like the Brennan Center for Justice and the ACLU have challenged these impediments through:

  • Litigation
  • Advocacy
  • Public education

For example, they supported Amendment 4 in Florida to restore voting rights to most felons who had completed their sentences.

The Voting Rights Act's Materiality Provision has become another area of legal contention, particularly regarding mail-in ballots. Recent cases in Texas, Arizona, and Georgia highlight disputes over this provision.

The Shelby County decision's impact continues to be felt, as it removed the preclearance mechanism of the Voting Rights Act, leaving minorities vulnerable to restrictive voting laws.

These ongoing challenges reveal a persistent struggle for equitable access to the ballot box, despite the foundational ethos of equal voting rights established during Reconstruction and the civil rights era.

Montage of modern voting rights challenges

The ongoing battle for voting rights underscores a critical tension in American constitutional practice. While strides were made during Reconstruction and the civil rights era, contemporary legal battles reveal an enduring struggle. From contested voter ID laws to subtle mechanisms of voter roll purges, the fight for equitable access to the ballot box persists.

"The role of organizations and legal advocates remains indispensable, serving as a bulwark against the ceaseless tide of legislative and judicial threats."

Vigilance and unfaltering enforcement are our best defenses against regression. As we move forward, it is crucial to recognize that the battle for voting rights is not a relic of the past, but an ongoing challenge that requires constant attention and action.