Voting Rights in the United States - Essay Example

?“In the field of voting rights, more often than not, the United s Supreme Court has been an enemy of liberty and the right to cast a meaningfulvote, and NOT a friend.” This proposition, unfortunately, is truer than most would like to admit. When Thomas Jefferson penned the immortal and historic words “all men are created equal” on the Declaration of Independence, what he really had in mind was that, to him, all Caucasian men who hold property are created equal. He made no allowance for those of other backgrounds, or for minorities such as women. In defense of Jefferson, at that time most people of other races such as African-Americans were slaves, and the movement to grant women voting rights had not even begun to form, much less fight. However, in the years since the words of the Declaration of Independence were put to parchment, the Supreme Court has, more often than not, shown that it will uphold the status quo of society, and deny the right to vote to women and those of minorities, rather than affirming and advancing it. Though there have been some instances of advancement occurring, they are not as plentiful as those that do not. The list of cases for both protection and denial of voting rights spans not only decades of history, but could also span volumes of pages. As always with multiple examples, there are those that best exemplify things, and I believe that the cases of United States v. Reese in 1876 as well as Minor v. Happersett in 1874 are the best examples of the Supreme Court denying voting rights, while the cases of Smith v. Allwright in 1944 and Baker v. Carr in 1962 are the best examples of both advancing the right to vote and ensuring protection for it. Both United States v. Reese and Minor v. Happersett are excellent examples of denying the right to vote to minority groups such as those of African American heritage as well as women, because while the Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of the Constitution and its amendments in these cases, they still denied the right to a meaningful vote overall. In U.S. v. Reece, the vote was denied because the person was of African American heritage, though it was not directly stated that this was the cause, and in Minor v. Happersett, it was because the person was a woman. In United States v. Reese, an election inspector, Hiram Reese, had refused to allow William Garner, who was an African-American, to vote in a Lexington, Kentucky election, due to the fact that he had not paid a poll tax of $1.50. In Minor v. Happersett Mrs. Virginia Minor, leader of the suffrage movement for women in Missouri, brought suit against a registration officer when he refused to add her name to the list of registered voters, due to her gender. Garner alleged that he had attempted to pay the poll tax and had been refused, while Mrs. Minor alleged that she was a citizen, and all citizens had the right to vote, therefore she had the right to vote. The Supreme Court in United States v. Reese ruled that the Fifteenth Amendment “does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone”, meaning that just because he was African American did not mean that Garner had the right to vote. The result of this case was that states were able to continually deny the vote to African Americans, not based on race, but on other requirements such as literacy and nonpayment of poll taxes. In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court went further, stating that though the Fourteenth Amendment gave all citizens the right to vote, and Mrs. Minor was indeed a citizen, the Constitution did not specifically give women the right to vote. This decision was all the more ridiculous because the Constitution did not provide for many things that had since come into existence in the United States and had worked quite well, yet women were still denied the right to vote because it did not exist in the Constitution. Both of these cases are examples of the Supreme Court not only denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States, but acknowledging that legislation existed that could have protected them, had the court chose to interpret it that way. In these two cases, it was the Supreme Court specifically that made itself an enemy of the right to vote by denying that such a right existed. It was not the members of Congress, as it was Congress who had passed the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; however, there were those that would see the right to vote denied to others that, while claiming to advance democracy, in fact limited it, just as the Supreme Court did in their decisions. Though the above cases are examples in which the Supreme Court proved they were not willing to advance or protect the right to vote, there are other cases where it has been done. Two examples of this are the cases of Smith v. Allwright in 1944 and Baker v. Carr in 1962. Both cases, in some way, affected the votes of people, though not necessarily minorities, and in both cases the Supreme Court chose to challenge the status quo and set a precedent. In Smith v. Allwright, which involved primary elections in the state of Texas, once again the Fifteenth Amendment came into play; however, this time, the Supreme Court decided that, as primaries were part of the election process, all people had the right to vote in them free of discrimination. Texas had long had a history of denying the vote in primaries to African Americans, until in 1941 the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) took advantage of a previous case, United States v. Classic, in which the Supreme Court ruled that “Congress could regulate primary as well as general elections for federal office.” Hence, African Americans could no longer be denied the right to vote in a primary, and the NAACP sponsored the suit of Mr. Smith, who alleged that he had been denied a ballot due to his race. The Supreme Court, in Smith v. Allwright, ruled that this was indeed the case, and set a precedent that would rival their earlier denial of voting rights to minorities. In deciding this case, the Supreme Court showed itself to be a friend to the voters, despite not being elected by them. It is also to be noted in this case that while the ruling of the Supreme Court showed it to be a friend to voting rights, it was the legislature of the state of Texas that was the enemy. Those that were actually elected into office denied the rights of those that would assist them in attaining their goals, by denying them the right to vote based on race. It is all the more reprehensible in the case of Smith v. Allwright due to the fact that Texas did not even attempt to couch its beliefs on African American voters behind the guise of such things as poll taxes or literacy tests; according to the published history behind the case, they openly denied voters that were not white a vote in 1919, despite the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments being previously passed by Congress. The Supreme Court would, once again, advance voting rights in the case of Baker v. Carr in 1962, though this time the situation was slightly different. While individual voting rights were still very much at issue, the fact remained that America had changed; urbanization had taken place, and redistricting of the Congress had not. Plaintiffs from Memphis, Nashville, and Knoxville, all in Tennessee, brought suit in Baker v. Carr against the Tennessee Secretary of State due to the fact that required apportionment of votes among the counties of Tennessee after each decennial census; however, this had not been carried out since 1901. Therefore, the votes to determine seats were widely skewed, and not fair in representation. The Supreme Court, in ruling in favor of the plaintiff, not only advanced voting rights but opened the door to a hailstorm of state lawsuits across the country, all challenging that they, too, had not received fair representation. In its decision for Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court explicitly stated the concept of “one person, one vote”, as well as concluding “that no factors—not geographical districts, nor a desire to keep governmental units intact, nor a federal, compromise in which one chamber would represent population and the other governmental units such as counties—but strictly equal population districts would pass Constitutional muster.” In this case, the Supreme Court, while hesitant to take on the issue, had in fact established protection for voters and their representation at the federal level. Much more has been written on the decisions that have denied basic voting rights to people than has been written on the protection or advancement of those same rights. The Supreme Court, made up of people appointed for lifetime tenure, has shown that it gives little thought to the voting rights of others, since they will not have to worry about losing their jobs based on their decisions; their popularity is never in question, since they are not elected to their posts and will vacate them only upon retirement or death. The Supreme Court should be held as accountable as the legislators that propose and pass the laws that will one day be interpreted. The checks and balances that were put into place in this country have, on more than one occasion failed to do what they were set out to do, as seen in cases such as Minor v. Happersett. It was clear that, during these times, the Supreme Court was ruled more by society and the status quo, rather than what could have been landmark cases in which they hailed change. Unfortunately, the ultimate point in the proposition originally considered holds true: the Supreme Court has, more often than not, been an enemy of the right to vote, rather than a friend. Though there are cases that are on both sides of the issue, they definitely do not balance, and it is a sad testament to American history that the right to cast a meaningful vote has been a struggle for so many, for so long, despite the system set in place to protect the rights of the people over two hundred years ago. Works Cited Baker v. Carr. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Web. 04 December 2011. Hall, Kermit L. “Reese, United States v.” The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. 2005. Encyclopedia.com. Web. 5 Dec. 2011 “Minor v. Happersett.” Dictionary of American History. 2003. Encyclopedia.com. Web. 5 Dec. 2011 Rathbone, Mark. “The U.S. Supreme Court and Civil Rights.” Dubai College, n.d. Web. 5 Dec 2011. Smith v. Allwright. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Web. 02 December 2011. Read More