fbpx

Fifteenth Amendment Voting Rights

Historical Context and Passage of the Fifteenth Amendment

The post-Civil War era was chaotic. Reconstruction aimed to address the issues of a fractured nation. Black voting rights were a central concern.

Congress debated three versions of the Fifteenth Amendment. They settled on prohibiting voting denial based on race, color, or past slavery. On February 26, 1869, Congress passed it, but ratification was challenging. Southern states had to accept both the Fifteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to rejoin the Union.

By March 30, 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment joined the Constitution. However, Southern Democrats resisted the new Amendments. Black citizens faced new voting barriers:

  • Literacy tests
  • Poll taxes
  • "Grandfather clauses"

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 marked a shift, enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment. Federal supervision of voter registration helped dismantle remaining barriers, although its modern relevance faced scrutiny in 2013 when the Supreme Court struck down key oversight provisions.1

Today, Louisiana's legislative maps in Nairne v. Landry showcase ongoing voting rights disputes, deeply rooted in history.

African American men lining up to vote for the first time during the Reconstruction era

Supreme Court Interpretations and Key Cases

Giles v. Harris (1903) exemplifies the Fifteenth Amendment's initial ineffectiveness without active enforcement. The Supreme Court, led by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, declared it lacked power to rectify Alabama's defiance of the Amendment.

Smith v. Allwright (1944) dismantled white-only primaries in the South. The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, declared these primaries unconstitutional, paving the way for greater Black political participation.

Rice v. Cayetano (2000) addressed a Hawaiian law restricting voting for certain state offices to Native Hawaiians. The Supreme Court found the law unconstitutional, ruling that restricting voting based on ancestry was akin to racial discrimination.

"These rulings illustrate the Fifteenth Amendment's evolution through judicial circles. Initially, the Court took a 'hands-off' approach, evolving into a more proactive stance by mid-20th century."
1940s Supreme Court justices deliberating in their chambers

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Its Impact

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) gave the Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power. It:

  • Required federal oversight in states notorious for voter discrimination
  • Scrapped literacy tests
  • Established federal examiners to oversee voter registration
  • Required pre-clearance for changes to voting laws in certain states

The Act was effective, leading to an immediate surge in Black voter registration and participation in the South. However, it faced criticism and debates over states' rights versus federal oversight.

In 2013, Shelby County v. Holder effectively weakened the VRA by striking down the coverage formula in Section 4(b). This rendered the pre-clearance stipulation useless. Critics saw it as an invitation for states to implement new restrictive voting measures.2

The VRA made significant progress against racial discrimination in voting, but the Shelby County decision showed such progress is not guaranteed. The fight for voting rights remains an ongoing battle, requiring constant vigilance.

Modern Controversies and Challenges

Today's voting rights issues include voter ID laws, felon disenfranchisement, and majority-minority districts.

Voter ID laws spark heated debate. Supporters claim they prevent fraud, while critics argue they suppress minority votes. The Supreme Court upheld Indiana's law in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), but challenges continue in states with stricter requirements.1

Felon disenfranchisement affects over six million Americans. Critics argue it disproportionately impacts African Americans due to systemic biases. Supporters contend felons should face consequences for breaking laws. States like Florida have seen legislative back-and-forth on restoring voting rights to felons.

Majority-minority districts, intended to ensure minority representation, have mixed effects. They can elect minority candidates but may reduce overall influence by concentrating minority votes. Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003) allowed consideration of broader minority influence across districts.

These issues highlight the tension between secure elections and equitable voting access. States continue to pass new laws, prompting judicial intervention to clarify gray areas.

Split image showing a person presenting ID at a polling station and protesters against voter ID laws

Congressional Power and Enforcement

The Fifteenth Amendment gives Congress power to enforce voting rights through legislation. This was necessary to counter state efforts to impede minority voting.

Key Congressional Actions:

  • Initial establishment of federal election supervisors and penalties for non-compliance
  • 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) with comprehensive measures, including Section 5's pre-clearance requirement
  • 1980s strengthening of Section 2 to prohibit voting procedures with discriminatory effects

The VRA significantly increased minority voter registration and turnout. Congress amended it to address new forms of disenfranchisement, including banning literacy tests and protecting language minorities.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013) struck down the Section 4(b) coverage formula, effectively ending pre-clearance. This led to new voter ID laws and early voting restrictions in previously covered states.

Congress's role shifted from proactive to reactive, battling in courts to uphold the Fifteenth Amendment's spirit. The ongoing case Nairne v. Landry challenges Section 2's necessity.

The scope of Congress's power under the Fifteenth Amendment remains crucial in maintaining voting rights against evolving tactics of discrimination.

Members of Congress engaged in heated debate over voting rights legislation

Conclusion

The fight for voting rights continues. Congressional power under the Fifteenth Amendment remains vital in guarding against attempts to undermine voting rights, highlighting the need for ongoing oversight to protect this fundamental aspect of democracy.