Isabella Carter
The process of amending the Constitution of the United States is a difficult and time-consuming task. A proposed amendment must be passed by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states. In recent times, supporters of amendments such as congressional term limits and a balanced budget amendment have been unsuccessful in their efforts to bring about change. The potential negative impact of amendments on vulnerable communities and the confusion they may cause are reasons why voting against a constitutional amendment might be considered. For example, in North Carolina, a proposed amendment to modify the qualifications to vote by removing the term naturalization from the constitutional voting qualifications may prevent naturalized citizens from exercising their right to vote.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Confusion | Removing the term “naturalization” from the constitutional voting qualifications may confuse naturalized citizens and prevent them from exercising their right to vote. |
| Voting Rights | Voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older). |
| Discrimination | Discriminatory practices and laws such as poll taxes, literary tests, grandfather clauses, and the newly-formed Ku Klux Klan prevented many African Americans in the Southern states from exercising their constitutional rights. |
| Federal Role | The federal role in elections has increased over time through amendments to the Constitution and enacted legislation to address discriminatory state and local practices. |
| State Discretion | In the absence of specific federal laws or constitutional provisions, states have considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within their jurisdictions. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Confusion and restriction of voting rights for naturalized citizens
In the United States, eligibility to vote is governed by the Constitution and federal and state laws. The Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments specifically require that voting rights of US citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, colour, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older). The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited the government from denying a citizen's right to vote based on "race, colour, or previous condition of servitude".
Despite these protections, throughout US history, various groups have been denied the right to vote. Following the Reconstruction era, Jim Crow laws such as literacy tests, poll taxes, and religious tests were used to disenfranchise immigrants, newly naturalized citizens, non-white citizens, and Native Americans. In 1915, a law was passed in Alaska that allowed Alaska Natives to vote if they gave up their "tribal customs and traditions". While this law was later amended, voter discrimination against Alaska Natives persisted.
Today, there are still efforts to restrict the voting rights of naturalized citizens. In North Carolina, House Bill 1074 proposes to amend the state constitution by modifying the qualifications to vote to only include "citizens", removing the clause "every person born in the United States and every person who has been naturalized". Democracy NC and other statewide advocates urge voters to vote against this bill, arguing that it creates confusion and may prevent naturalized citizens from exercising their fundamental right to vote, guaranteed to all US citizens.
By removing the term "naturalization" from the constitutional voting qualifications, there is a risk that naturalized citizens will face barriers to voting. This amendment ignores existing state and federal laws that already require US citizenship to vote and robust election safeguards. It is essential to recognize that immigrants and naturalized citizens are vital to North Carolina's economy, contributing significantly to the state's workforce, spending power, and tax revenue. Therefore, it is crucial to protect their voting rights and ensure their political self-determination.
Methods of Proposing Amendments: Unused Powers
You may want to see also
History of discriminatory practices and laws
The history of the United States is rife with discriminatory practices and laws, many of which were enshrined in the Constitution and required amendments to be rectified. The Fourteenth Amendment, for instance, was adopted in 1868 to address citizenship rights and equal protection under the law at all levels of government. It was a direct response to issues affecting freed slaves following the Civil War, and its enactment was bitterly contested. Despite this amendment, African Americans continued to face violence, intimidation, and discriminatory practices that denied them true social equality.
One of the landmark Supreme Court cases that highlighted ongoing discrimination was Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. Homer Plessy, who was considered seven-eighths Caucasian and one-eighth Black, defied Louisiana's segregation law by sitting in the whites-only car of the East Louisiana Railroad. Despite the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of equality, Plessy was arrested, and his case wound up before the Supreme Court. The Court's decision in this case, upholding the "separate but equal" doctrine, was a setback for racial equality and perpetuated segregation.
Another example of discriminatory practices is seen in the voting process. The passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was intended to prevent discriminatory voting policies. However, the Supreme Court has since weakened the law's protections. In the 1960s, many states used outdated legislative districts, resulting in disproportionate political representation for people in urban areas. While the Warren Court mandated more fairly representative districts, discriminatory voting practices persisted. In 2013, the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder removed crucial safeguards, making it easier for restrictive voting policies to be enacted.
Discrimination was also prevalent in education and employment. Despite the Fourteenth Amendment's aim to prevent segregation in schools, cases like Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 were necessary to prohibit racial segregation in public schools. Similarly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted to address discrimination in employment, making it illegal to base employment decisions on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This act also addressed discrimination in public accommodations and public education, further highlighting the pervasive nature of discriminatory practices in American society.
While the Fourteenth Amendment and civil rights legislation aimed to rectify discriminatory practices, their enforcement and interpretation have been complex and contentious. The Equal Protection Clause, for instance, has been interpreted in various ways, and the Supreme Court has had to rule on numerous cases to clarify its scope and application. Despite progress, the legacy of discrimination persists, and ongoing litigation is necessary to address remaining inequalities and ensure equal protection under the law for all Americans.
The US Constitution: Unamended, Why?
You may want to see also
Voting rights not explicitly stated in the US Constitution
The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the US Constitution. The original Constitution does not have much to say about the right to vote. There is no mention in the text that citizens have the right to vote in elections. Instead, it states that anyone eligible to vote for the largest house of a state legislature is also eligible to vote for members of the House of Representatives from that state.
The absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision left states with considerable discretion in establishing qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within their jurisdiction. This resulted in significant variation in the nation's early years. Most states initially restricted voting to property-owning or tax-paying white men, while some states, like New Jersey, allowed free Black men and women of both races to vote, provided they met property or tax requirements.
Over time, the federal role in elections increased due to discriminatory state and local practices, and amendments to the Constitution were made to extend voting rights to non-whites, those without property, women, and those aged 18–21. These amendments, passed after the Civil War, guaranteed that voting rights could not be denied or abridged based on race, colour, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (for those 18 and older).
Despite these amendments, the right to vote is still not explicitly stated in the US Constitution, except in reference to the prohibition of discrimination in voting based on the aforementioned factors. The "citizens-only voting" constitutional amendment proposed in North Carolina, for example, has been criticised for potentially preventing naturalized citizens from exercising their right to vote.
Georgia's Constitution: Recent Amendments and Their Impact
You may want to see also
Explore related products
State-level voter eligibility determination
The US Constitution grants states the power to determine voter eligibility for their citizens, including registration requirements. This power is protected by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, and the Seventeenth Amendment. States may request information they deem necessary to assess eligibility or voter registration applicants and enforce voter qualifications.
However, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause places limits on state-level voter eligibility determination. For instance, states may require a duration of residency as a qualification to vote, but such requirements must serve a compelling state interest to be deemed constitutional. The Court has struck down state provisions that impose invidious discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, such as prohibiting members of the military from establishing a voting residence within a state during their service.
Additionally, the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying citizens the right to vote based on race, color, or previous conditions of servitude. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 further prohibited voter discrimination based on race, color, or membership in a language minority group, and required certain places to provide election materials in languages other than English.
While states have a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud, the Supreme Court has ruled that certain state-imposed restrictions may be deemed unconstitutional. For example, the Court invalidated a one-year state residency requirement and a three-month county residency requirement as unnecessary to further a compelling governmental interest.
The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 have also played a role in shaping state-level voter eligibility determination. The NVRA created new ways to register to vote and called for states to maintain more accurate voter registration lists, while HAVA authorized federal funding for elections and established the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to help states comply with HAVA standards on voter education, registration, and ballots.
Suffrage and the Constitution: Amendments for Voting Rights
You may want to see also
Inadequate protection against voter discrimination
In the United States, the right to vote is protected by federal laws and constitutional amendments. The Fifteenth Amendment, for example, prohibits the government from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, colour, or previous condition of servitude". However, despite these protections, there is evidence that voter discrimination persists, particularly against racial minorities and naturalized citizens.
One example of inadequate protection against voter discrimination is the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. The Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required certain jurisdictions with a history of voter discrimination to obtain federal approval before implementing changes to voting procedures. This ruling was based on the assumption that racial discrimination in voting was largely a thing of the past. However, in the years since, states have added nearly 100 restrictive voting laws, many of which are racially discriminatory and fall hardest on communities of colour.
Another example of inadequate protection against voter discrimination is North Carolina's House Bill 1074, which proposes to amend the state constitution to modify the qualifications to vote. The bill would remove the phrase "every person born in the United States and every person who has been naturalized" from the voting qualifications, potentially preventing naturalized citizens from exercising their right to vote. This bill ignores existing state and federal laws that already require U.S. citizenship to vote and robust election safeguards.
Additionally, historical context demonstrates that voter discrimination has been pervasive in the United States, particularly against racial minorities and immigrants. Beginning in 1790, individual states started to disenfranchise non-white men and women, and by 1856, several states had stripped free black males of their right to vote. Following the Reconstruction era, Jim Crow laws such as literacy tests, poll taxes, and religious tests were used to deny voting rights to non-white citizens and immigrants. While the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964 provided some protections against discrimination in voting, they were often difficult to enforce due to strict legal standards.
Overall, despite constitutional amendments and federal laws protecting voting rights, inadequate protection against voter discrimination persists in the United States. Restrictive voting laws, confusion over voting qualifications, and historical discriminatory practices continue to suppress the voting rights of racial minorities and naturalized citizens.
Civil Rights Act: Constitutional Amendments Explained
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
House Bill 1074 proposes to amend the North Carolina Constitution to modify the qualifications to vote to only a “citizen” by removing “every person born in the United States and every person who has been naturalized”.
Removing the term "naturalization" from the constitutional voting qualifications may prevent naturalized citizens from exercising their right to vote. It may also create confusion.
Amendment 15, also known as "The Right to Vote", grants the right to vote for all male citizens of the United States regardless of their race, ethnicity, or prior slave status.
Despite the significant impact of Amendment 15, the right to vote was interpreted relatively narrowly by the Supreme Court throughout the late 19th and mid-20th centuries. It also did not extend the right to vote to women.
The Nineteenth Amendment (1920) granted women the right to vote. The Twenty-fourth Amendment (1962) eliminated poll taxes in federal elections. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 eliminated all forms of discrimination in federal, state, and local elections.
