#1965 Voting Rights Act

[indizombie]

Ever since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Black voters have been the Democratic Party’s most loyal constituency. And Black churches have frequently operated almost as an extra organizational arm for Democrats, with church leaders endorsing candidates, giving them platforms to connect with voters, and spearheading registration and turnout efforts. Civil rights icons like the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rep. John Lewis began their careers in the church, preaching love and peace as a path to social and political progress. As “the first Black institution,” says Eric McDaniel, co-director of the University of Texas at Austin’s Politics of Race and Ethnicity Lab, the church is “where Black politics took shape.”

Story Hinckley, ‘Black voters’ decline in church attendance could hurt Biden, help Trump’, Christian Science Monitor

[vividmaps]

Explore a map visualization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act Senate vote, revealing the complex regional and political divisions in mid-1960s America. Discover how individual states voted on this landmark civil rights legislation.

[filosofablogger]

Voter Apathy -- Part II (A Reprisal from 2018)

Yesterday morning I reprised Part I of a three-part post I wrote in 2018 about voter apathy.  Now, you might think that I should write a new one, rather than reprise one from six years ago, but as I read over it to refresh my memory, I find that these posts are every bit as relevant today as they were in 2018.  Today’s is less critical than Part I, more of an assessment of who is more likely to…

[deadpresidents]

You're suggesting that I read a book about LBJ???

Should I pick one from this bookcase, or the other FULL bookcase I have that entirely consists of books about Lyndon Baines Johnson and/or the Johnson Administration?

The idea that Lyndon Johnson had to be "dragged to sign the civil rights act by a republican congress" is as laughable as the claim that Donald Trump did more for Black people than any President since Lincoln. Republicans were absolutely essential to passing LBJ's multiple pieces of significant civil rights legislation but Lyndon Johnson was the driving force behind every civil rights bill that he signed into law. Any brief study of the Civil Rights Movement or time spent listening to the tapes of President Johnson's phone calls tirelessly working to win Republican votes clearly tells the actual story.

The passage of LBJ's most important civil rights legislation -- particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- was the result of LBJ's incredible mastery of the legislative process and fierce determination to enact meaningful civil rights laws. And if you don't want to take my word for it, go back and read what Black leaders since Martin Luther King Jr. have been saying for nearly 60 years about LBJ's essential role as a leader and as a partner in getting real legislation pushed through Congress and formally signed into law. John F. Kennedy couldn't have accomplished what LBJ did on civil rights and there's not a Republican President who would have even tried.

There are plenty of subjects that I am not even close to being an expert about, but I can guarantee you that I've studied Lyndon Johnson extensively and his accomplishments in domestic policy -- specifically civil rights -- is one area where I know what I am talking about.

[sanyu-thewitch05]

DNI: NON BLACK PEOPLE!!

So…y’all seeing the Antiblackness jumping out of the nonblack people in the Free Palestine on tiktok and other social media platforms(mainly Twitter)?

Like it’s crazy how all this started because Maya Ayooni came at a Black woman, sicked her 2.1 million followers(some of which are still on Tori Griers page today), did a whole live framing her as an angry Black woman and just being condescending overall, then making a quick little apology video that had the comments locked so there’s only ten of them. Then a bunch of non black people and even other Arabs(unsurprising tbh) started jumping on Black people collectively. It’s absolutely disgusting that I’ve actually seen someone call Kamala Harris a white man in a colored woman’s body(she’s biracial but come on now) to referring to other Black people as melanated people.

And Maya’s butt had the nerve to repost this tiktok calling Black people colonizers which by the way is the same video calling Black people, melanated people.

@queen-shiba

Here’s some links with the TikToks that started this whole mess:

UPDATE!! MAYA IS TARGETING BLACK WOMEN ONCE AGAIN

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Kamala Harris: 61 years ago today, hundreds of thousands of people marched on Washington to demand jobs and freedom. That day was a call to action for our nation. It helped rally advocates and elected officials to secure landmark legislative victories in the fight for progress, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. Today, we celebrate that progress and know that our work continues. We recommit ourselves to the fight for equity, opportunity, and justice for every American.

[Robert Scott Horton]

[boricuacherry-blog]

[moleshow]

according to posts i saw on my computer, voting doesn't matter, so now i'm trying to figure out why those klansmen murdered james cheney, michael schwerner, and andrew goodman. gotta say i'm stumped but i'll let you know if i figure it out

[cherryblossomshadow]

From the article linked above:

Speaking for a 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. pronounced the pre-clearance process a “resounding success” — and then declared it unconstitutional.

The problem, Roberts said, is the formula that Congress wrote for deciding which jurisdictions must seek pre-clearance. That formula has not been updated since the 1970s, and that, he said, is unacceptable.

“African American turnout has come to exceed white voter turn out in five of the six states originally covered”

by the 1965 law, and it is nearly equal in the remaining original states, he said. The Constitution rests on the “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the states,” Roberts said, and if Congress is to single out some of them for special oversight, it must do so “in light of current conditions. It cannot rely simply on the past.”

.

Writing for the court’s four liberal members in dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg denounced the majority for “hubris.” The 15th Amendment, which gave black people the right to vote after the Civil War, gave Congress the power to enforce those rights, Ginsburg wrote, and

the court was wrong to substitute its judgment.

.

Usually, when the court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, the justices point to a particular provision in the Constitution. Roberts suggested vaguely that the Voting Rights Act violated the 10th Amendment and quoted his own decision of 2009 invoking the “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the states.”

[Image ID: A series of screenshots from a Twitter thread by Jason Coupet / professajay.

Text begins: Man voting in Georgia is so different than in Illinois. When I lived in chicago, during early voting, I went to the local elementary school, waited in line about ten minutes, and they gave me a sheet of paper. I checked people off then I put it in the machine and left.

Not Georgia. We drove downtown because *every* other polling place had a line >90 minutes. We paid ten bucks to park. We went in the building, then emptied out pockets to go through a metal detector. We then saw a sign about where to park to get our parking validated. Inside.

We then waited in line ~80 minutes. We got to the end and we were given a form to fill out (?). We were told *not* to sign it until told. Then we were moved into a waiting room where we were given a ticket number, like when you are at the dmv.

We were told to get our IDs out and wait. We waited here for 15-20 minutes. When your number is called they took your form, did some stuff on the computer, then told you to sign the form. Then you get a little green card. You insert it into the machine.

Then you go through three or four prompts, including a very serious™️ warning about perjury, a totally necessary warning given how huge a problem stolen identity is for the purposes of voting on behalf of someone else.

You then finally vote, and after an “are you sure” prompt you get a sheet. You then have to walk the sheet over to feed it into a machine. About half of these were working.

The bottleneck was clearly the weird application and waiting room thing. There are two dozen people at a time sitting to have their stuffed checked. Think of it as regular voting except when you got there they had to run a credit check for *each person* like you need financing.

It was easier finishing my PhD paperwork. Thankful for the kind people (nearly all black women) the shepherded the processes. But man if you are poor or disabled or whatever, good luck yo. That should have been easier. We finished tho. Text ends.

Image ID: Two Black people are standing beside a city street and smiling at the camera, a man and a woman. The man has close-cropped hair and a beard. He is wearing a black hoodie that says Southside and has a sticker on his chest with a peach on it. The woman has large tortoiseshell browline glasses and long twist locs. She has a light brown leather crossbody bag, and is wearing a salmon-colored windbreaker. She also has a peach sticker on her chest, which she is pointing to. Her hand has a wedding ring. End ID]

[whitesinhistory]

On June 25, 2013, in a 5-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and effectively gutted one of the nation’s most important and successful civil rights laws. Despite adoption in 1870 of the Fifteenth Amendment barring racial discrimination in voting, Southern states and others used poll taxes, literacy tests, and violence to deny Black Americans the right to vote for another century. Unchecked and systematic voter suppression targeted African American communities in the South for generations. After decades of organized civil rights activism, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) finally became law on August 6, 1965. It outlawed discriminatory barriers to voting like poll taxes and literacy tests and also imposed strict oversight upon states and districts with histories of voter discrimination. The new law quickly proved extremely effective; Black registration rates soon rose throughout the South, and Black officials were elected at the highest rates since Reconstruction. In this way, the Act directly confronted and addressed a century of racist voting policies. Section 4 of the Act required jurisdictions with the worst records of discrimination to obtain “preclearance” from the federal government before changing voting laws. However, in Shelby County v. Holder, Alabama officials argued that preclearance was no longer constitutional or necessary, and the Supreme Court agreed. Chief Justice Roberts reasoned for the majority that “things have changed dramatically” since 1965—voting tests are illegal, racial disparities in voter turnout and registration have diminished, and people of color hold elected office “in record numbers.” Yet voting discrimination—and the need for the Voting Rights Act—continues in the present day, the dissenters pointed out. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in dissent that covered jurisdictions continue to propose voting law changes that are rejected under the VRA, “auguring that barriers to minority voting would quickly resurface were the preclearance remedy eliminated.” The decision drastically reduced the VRA’s power to combat “second-generation barriers” to voting, like racial gerrymandering, which minimize the impact of minority votes. “The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective,” wrote Justice Ginsburg. “The Court appears to believe that the VRA's success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclearance is no longer needed. With that belief, and the argument derived from it, history repeats itself.” The decision unleashed a surge in voter suppression measures—including strict voter ID laws, cutting voting times, restricting registration, and purging voter rolls—that are undermining voter participation by people of color today.

[lawforeverything]

The voting rights act of 1965

On this page you will read detailed information about The Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 stands as a landmark piece of legislation in the United States, aimed at dismantling discriminatory barriers that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote. Enacted on August 6, 1965, the Voting Rights Act marked a significant turning point in the fight against racial injustice and inequality. This comprehensive act aimed to ensure that every citizen, regardless of their race or ethnicity, could freely participate in the political process and elect their representatives. In this article, we will delve into the historical context, key provisions, and impact of the Voting Rights Act, highlighting its ongoing relevance in today’s society.

Historical Context: The Fight for Voting Rights Act of 1965

Reconstruction and the Fifteenth Amendment

The struggle for voting rights began soon after the American Civil War, with the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. This amendment guaranteed that the right to vote could not be denied based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. However, Southern states quickly implemented discriminatory practices, such as literacy tests and poll taxes, to disenfranchise African Americans and maintain white supremacy.

Jim Crow Era: Disenfranchisement and Discrimination

Throughout the Jim Crow era, African Americans faced numerous obstacles to voting, including intimidation, violence, and complex bureaucratic restrictions. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and whites-only primaries were used to systematically exclude Black voters, particularly in the Deep South. By the early 20th century, the majority of African Americans were effectively disfranchised, leading to a severe imbalance of political power and limited representation for marginalized communities.

The Need for Change: Selma and the Voting Rights Act

Selma and the Voting Rights Movement

In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement gained momentum, with activists like Martin Luther King Jr. leading courageous efforts to combat voting discrimination. The Selma to Montgomery marches in Alabama became a pivotal moment, as peaceful demonstrators were met with violent opposition from state law enforcement. The tragic events of Bloody Sunday, where marchers were brutally attacked, shocked the nation and galvanized support for voting rights reform.

President Johnson’s Call for Legislation

The outrage over the brutality in Selma prompted President Lyndon B. Johnson to push for comprehensive federal legislation that would protect voting rights. In a speech following the march, Johnson declared his intention to sign a Voting Rights Act into law, stating that denying any American the right to vote was “wrong, deadly wrong.” His commitment to equality and justice set the stage for the passage of this historic legislation.

The Voting Rights Act: Key Provisions and Impact

Overview of the Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a multifaceted legislation that aimed to dismantle discriminatory voting practices and ensure equal access to the ballot box. Its key provisions addressed both the immediate challenges faced by African American voters and the long-term goal of eliminating systemic barriers to political participation.

Section 5: Preclearance and Federal Oversight

One of the most significant aspects of the Voting Rights Act was Section 5, which required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to seek federal approval, or “preclearance,” before implementing any changes to their voting laws or procedures. This provision gave federal authorities the power to scrutinize and prevent any measures that would disproportionately impact minority voters.

For complete information please visit :

[unsolicited-opinions]

Leftist antisemitism is a symptom - American Jews and the Illiberal Left

TLDR: I think we would be wise to stop regarding leftist antisemitism only in its own context and habitually recognize it is a part of a larger issue, the rise of the illiberal left.

Why are Jews are the most reliable supporters of Liberal policies and politicians in modern American history?

Haviv Rettig Gur seems to suggest that Jews in the US, recognizing that Liberal values resulted in their (imperfect but historic) emancipation in the US, became perhaps the most Liberal people ever. They understood that US Liberal values were what made Jews relatively safe in the US, and offered them opportunities which had been denied to them everywhere else.

When previously did a head of state speak to Jews the way George Washington did?

Gur suggests that this is why American Jews have historically been so invested in the struggle of black folks in the US. When I say invested, I'm talking about facts like these:

- Henry Moscowitz was one of the founders of the NAACP.

- Kivie Kaplan, a vice-chairman of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (now called the Union for Reform Judaism), served as the national president of the NAACP from 1966 to 1975.

- From 1910 to 1940, more than 2,000 primary and secondary schools and 20 Black colleges (including Howard, Dillard and Fisk universities) were established in whole or in part by contributions from Jewish philanthropist Julius Rosenwald. At the height of the so-called "Rosenwald schools," nearly 40 percent of Black people in the south were educated at one of these institutions.

- Jews made up half of the young people who participated in the Mississippi Freedom Summer of 1964.

- Leaders of the Reform Movement were arrested with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in St. Augustine, Florida in 1964 after a challenge to racial segregation in public accommodations.

- Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched arm-in-arm with Dr. King in his 1965 March on Selma.

- The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were drafted in the conference room of Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, under the aegis of the Leadership Conference, which for decades was located in the RAC's building.

When I was a child and asked my mother why Jews seemed overwhelmingly to be Democrats, I was told "because of FDR and the Civil Rights movement." That's not wrong, in Gur's framing, but perhaps a more shallow response than the question deserves.

In Gur's framing, US Jews realized that the promises of Liberalism, over and over, no matter how much they delivered for other peoples, did not deliver for black Americans.

Gur suggests that US Jews worked to see that change for their black co-citizens because if American Liberalism didn't deliver for black Americans what it appeared to promise to all Americans, the sense of safety, security, and belonging which Jews felt in the US was an illusion.

US Jews believed that we had common cause with non-Jewish American Liberals. We thought non-Jewish liberals believed what we believed about universal civil rights, pluralism, enlightenment values and enlightenment reason. When Jews saw the "In this House We Believe" signs on our neighbors' lawns, We felt comforted because those beliefs are also our beliefs.

We thought, for instance, that our non-Jewish friends agreed that Liberal democracies were better for human rights than any form of government in the history of human societies. We thought they agreed that religious, racial, and ethnic intolerance were social ills which needed to be fought with information. We thought they valued data, reason, and reliable sources.

Since 10/7/23, we've been learning that we were mistaken. We've seen gentiles who we thought shared our values seem to discard those values.

We saw college educated friends share antisemitic (and alarmingly familiar) conspiracy theories about Israeli puppetry of US politics and the return of Nazi and Soviet antisemitic slogans/images.

We've seen highly educated "Liberals" preach ahistoric nonsense denying that the Jewish people are from the Levant and willfully ignoring the huge swaths of historical fact which don't support their favored narrative.

We've seen friends rage against "globalists" and "Zionists," when what they mean is 'Jews'.

We've seen people who we thought were allies against all forms of racism justify their racism towards Jews as righteous through specious reasoning like 'I don't hate Jews, just the 97% of Jews who believe that Jews should have self-determination in their homeland.'

We've been told that we cannot ask them to temper their use of antisemitic tropes, because doing so "weaponizes" concerns about antisemitism to obstruct them from their righteous crusade against the most evil nation on earth...which happens to be the only Jewish nation.

Despite this, about 80% of Jewish voters voted for Harris over Trump.

I think US Jews will continue to be Liberals, because Liberal values are dear to us and aligned with our values as Jews, as a historically oppressed minority, and as Americans who see more clearly than some others the gap between the promise of American liberalism and its long-delayed universal delivery.

The problem, I think, is in how many of our former friends simply aren't Liberals any longer.

I think Jews in the US need to spend a good deal more time scrutinizing the illiberal left.

Nine days after the attacks of 10/7/23, Jonathan Chait wrote:

Writers like Michelle Goldberg, Julia Ioffe, and my colleague Eric Levitz, all of whom rank among the writers I most admire, have written anguished columns about the alienation of Jewish progressives from the far left. I think all their points are totally correct. But I find the frame of their response too narrow. They are treating apologias for Hamas as a factually or logically flawed application of left-wing ideals. I believe, to the contrary, that Hamas defenders are applying their own principles correctly. The problem is the principles themselves.

...

Liberals believe political rights are universal. Basic principles like democracy, free speech, and human rights apply equally to all people, without regard to the content of their political values. (This of course very much includes Palestinians, who deserve the same rights as Jews or any other people, and whose humanity is habitually ignored by Israeli conservatives and their American allies.) A liberal would abhor the use of political violence or repression, however evil the targets.

...

The illiberal left believes treating everybody equally, when the power is so unequal, merely serves to maintain existing structures of power. It follows from their critique that the legitimacy of a tactic can only be assessed with reference to whether it is being used by the oppressor or the oppressed. Is it okay for, say, a mob of protesters to shout down a lecture? Liberals would say no. Illiberal leftists would need to know who was the speaker and who was the mob before they could answer.

...

One observation I’ve shared with many analysts well to my left is that the debate over this illiberalism and the social norms it has spawned — demands for deference in the name of allyship, describing opposing ideas as a form of harm, and so on — has tracked an older debate within the left over communism. Communism provided real-world evidence of how an ideology that denies political rights to anybody deemed to be the oppressor laid the theoretical groundwork for repression and murder.

There have been conscious echoes of this old divide in the current dispute over Hamas. The left-wing historian Gabriel Winant has a column in Dissent urging progressives not to mourn dead Israeli civilians because that sentiment will be used to advance the Zionist project. Winant sounds eerily like an old communist fellow traveler explaining that the murders of the kulaks or the Hungarian nationalists are the necessary price of defending the revolution. “The impulse, repeatedly called ‘humane’ over the past week, to find peace by acknowledging equally the losses on all sides rests on a fantasy that mourning can be depoliticized,” he argues, calling such soft-minded sentiment “a new Red Scare.” Making the perfect omelette always requires some broken eggs in the form of innocent people who made the historical error of belonging to, or perhaps being born into, an enemy class.

But more than three decades have passed since the Soviet Union existed or China’s government was recognizably Marxist. And so the liberal warning about the threat of left-wing illiberalism seemed abstract and bloodless. On October 7, it suddenly became bloody and concrete. It didn’t happen here, of course. The shock of it was that many leftists revealed just how far they would be willing to follow their principles. “People have repeated over and over again over the last few days that you ‘cannot tell Palestinians how to resist,’” notes (without contradicting the sentiment) Arielle Angel, editor-in-chief of the left-wing Jewish Currents. Concepts like this, treating the self-appointed representative of any oppressed group as beyond criticism, are banal on the left. Yet for some progressive Jews, it is shocking to see it extended to the slaughter of babies, even though that is its logical endpoint. The radical rhetoric of decolonization, with its glaring absence of any limiting principles, was not just a rhetorical cover to bully some hapless school administrator into changing the curriculum. Phrases like “by any means necessary” were not just figures of speech. Any means included any means, very much including murder.

Both Julia Ioffe and Eric Levitz have pointed out that decolonization logic ignores the fact that half of Israel’s Jewish population does not have European origins and came to Israel after suffering the same ethnic cleansing as the Palestinians. This is correct. But what if it weren’t? If every Israeli Jew descended from Ashkenazi stock, would it be okay to shoot their babies?

The problem is much greater than leftist antisemitism. The illiberal left has become nearly as great a threat to Liberalism as the far right.

It is often the case that a movement’s treatment of Jews serves as a broader indicator of its health. It’s not an accident that the Republican Party has become more attractive to antisemites as it has grown more paranoid and authoritarian. What the far left revealed about its disposition toward Jews is not just a warning for the Jews but a warning for all progressives who care about democracy and humanity. The pro-Hamas left is not merely indicating an indifference toward Jews. It is revealing the illiberal left’s inherent cruelty, repression, and inhumanity.

I'm annoyed that it is has taken me so long to catch on and alarmed by the implications.

I am, however, very proud of my 14yo, who sums up her experience trying to respectfully disagree with leftists this way:

"They're allergic to nuance."

[2bpoliticallycurious]

Republicans distort the meaning of "republic"

Republicans seem to be confused about the definition of a "republic."

re·pub·lic /rəˈpəblik/ noun [A] state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

In other words, in republics, the people elect their representatives. Although that is not direct democracy, it involves a democratic process.

Tyranny occurs when people are not free to vote for the representatives of their choice

The slogan, "No taxation without representation" became popular in America starting in 1768, because colonists believed they shouldn't be taxed unless they were given the right to select their own representatives to British Parliament. Granted, they only believed that white men should be able to vote for a representative, but clearly a founding idea of the American republic was one where representatives were chosen by citizens in a democratic process.

Which citizens were allowed to vote for their representatives changed over time. According to Voting Rights: A Short History:

The U.S. Constitution originally left it to states to determine who is qualified to vote in elections. For decades, state legislatures generally restricted voting to white males who owned property. Some states also employed religious tests to ensure that only Christian men could vote. [...] During the early part of the 19th century, state legislatures begin to limit the property requirement for voting. [emphasis added]

It seems to me, that many Republicans wish to return to this point in time, when only certain citizens were allowed to vote. A time before the 14th,15th, 17th, 19th, and 26th Amendments to the Constitution.

But unfortunately for Republicans, those Constitutional Amendments exist.

The 14th and 15th Amendments: Allowing Black men to vote

Sections 1 & 2 of the 14th Amendment implied that "born or naturalized" male citizens of at least "21-years of age" could vote. This would seem to include Black men who had previously been enslaved.

Any doubt that Black men could vote was clarified in Section 1 of the 15th Amendment, which stated:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965: Unfortunately, during Jim Crow, the South made it very difficult for Blacks to vote. Consequently the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was necessary to actually ensure that the promise of the 15th Amendment was fulfilled.

REPUBLICAN PUSHBACK: However, some lawsuits against voter suppression laws/gerrymandering in Republican states were decided by conservative justices on the Supreme Court in ways that have weakened the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The Shelby County v. Holder (2013) decision nullified Section 5 of the VRA, which had required federal approval of changes in the process of voting in jurisdictions with historical voting discrimination. Section 5 was nullified because SCOTUS declared the Section 4(b) "coverage formula" for jurisdictions to be outdated and therefore unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) decision made it harder for Section 2 of the VRA to be used to prove that a voting law discriminates against protected groups.

Fortunately, in Allen v. Milligan (2023), SCOTUS ruled that Alabama's congressional voting district map did not comply with Section 2 of the VRA. However, so far, the Alabama legislature has defied the SOCTUS ruling.

Republicans seem to want to continue to try to push the legal boundaries of the Voting Rights Act to see what they can get away with in their attempts to suppress the vote of certain populations.

The 17th Amendment: Letting the people elect senators

The 17th Amendment did away with state legislatures deciding who would be a U.S. senator. Instead, it allowed for citizens to directly elect their senators.

REPUBLICAN PUSHBACK: Unfortunately, some of today's Republicans want to repeal the 17th Amendment. They apparently don't trust "We the People" to elect the "right" senators.

[See more about the 19th and 26th Amendments below the cut.]

The 19th Amendment: Women's suffrage

I didn't know that even before the 19th Amendment was passed, a number of states and US territories allowed women to vote. According to 19th Amendment by State:

Several states and territories recognized women's suffrage rights before 1920, including Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Washington, California, Oregon, Montana, Arizona, Kansas, Alaska, Illinois, North Dakota, Indiana, Nebraska, Michigan, Arkansas, New York, South Dakota, and Oklahoma. [emphasis added]

But with the passage of the 19th Amendment, adult women who were American citizens had the right to vote in federal elections, as well as in every state.

REPUBLICAN PUSHBACK: Although most Republican politicians aren't foolish enough to suggest that women be deprived of the of vote, some have certainly tried to make it harder for women and other people to put abortion rights initiatives on the ballot--and thereby limiting women's power to vote for the initiatives and amendments to state constitutions they want. For instance, in Ohio, an August 2023 vote to make it harder to amend the state constitution was an attempt by the GOP to thwart the ability for voters to get an abortion rights amendment to the state constitution passed.

The 26th Amendment: Lowering the voting age from 21 to 18.

Finally, the passage of the 26th Amendment in 1971 lowered the minimum voting age from twenty-one to "eighteen years of age." The WWII slogan, "old enough to fight, old enough to vote," was used by activists during the Vietnam era to successfully argue for lowering the voting age.

REPUBLICAN PUSHBACK: Unfortunately, Republicans like Vivek Ramaswamy want to raise the voting age from 18 to 25. In this way they can eliminate the more liberal Gen Z from voting.

"That 'republic not a democracy' slogan is especially dangerous because it persuades Republicans that democracy and democratic practices don't matter to a free society. It went from being a clever slogan to a justification for voter suppression, authoritarian practices, January 6, and everything else."

--Marque Tres, commenting on the NY Times column Mitt Romney Has It Half Right

[filosofablogger]

Black History Month -- The First Black Voter

I first did this post four years ago … The year 2020 marks the centennial of the Nineteenth Amendment and the culmination of the women’s suffrage movement.  The year 2020 also marks the sesquicentennial of the Fifteenth Amendment (1870) and the right of black men to the ballot after the Civil War.  The theme speaks, therefore, to the ongoing struggle on the part of both black men and black women…

[whenweallvote]

This year marks the 60th anniversary of “Freedom Summer,” the 1964 voter registration movement in Mississippi. More than 700 volunteers mobilized to fight against voter intimidation and discrimination at the polls. 

Freedom Summer volunteers were met with violent resistance from the Ku Klux Klan and members of state and local law enforcement. News coverage of volunteers being beaten, arrested, and even killed drew international attention to the civil rights movement. 

The Freedom Summer project ultimately registered nearly 1,200 Black Americans to vote in Mississippi, and pushed Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This year, let's continue their fight to uplift Black voices and Black votes. Join us in registering voters during our Juneteenth Weekend of Action at weall.vote/juneteenth.

[sacramentohistorymuseum]

August 26 is Women’s Equality Day, a day observed on the anniversary of when the 19th Amendment was certified to the United States Constitution. The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote but those voting rights were still limited in many states and for People of Color. Voting rights were not fully extended to all groups until 1965 under the Voting Rights Act.

The fight for the 19th Amendment did not happen overnight as the suffrage movement that culminated in the certification of the 19th Amendment, on this day in 1920, began almost 100 years prior. Nevertheless, on this very historic day, we must reflect on the power that the right to vote has, especially with an election just over two months away.

For today, Alex letterpress printed one of the slogans used by suffragettes when advocating for the right to vote. This was typeset in 72 point Caslon font. The phrase states, “Votes For Women." This was printed with black rubber base ink using our Washington hand press.