The US amended its constitution in 1965 to include everybody in national voting process. The law outlawed discriminations based on ethnic and racial qualities that had been practiced since independence. In this regard, Africans had been disenfranchised because they could not elect leaders of their choice.
The Act followed the 15th amendment, which prohibited states from imposing any electoral merits or pre-requisites to candidates. Such conditions were viewed as direct violation of voting rights. The act eliminated the rule stating that a voter could only vote after passing a literacy test. The rule was widely used during slavery to bar Africans from electing their preferred leaders.
The American Civil War played a bigger role in eliminating unfavorable laws that were based on racial and tribal lines. The head of state appended his signature to the rule making it a national law in 1965. The act provided extensive federal supervision of elections.
It stated that regions with repressive voting practices could not execute any change that would affect voting without seeking approval from the state authority in charge of elections. The process was termed as preclearance, meaning that a universal body could control elections. The law affected many states in the south because they had a system that discriminated blacks.
The congress has amended the Act several times, the recent being the 2006 alteration that was signed into law by George Bush. Even though the Act was lauded as a landmark to civil rights legislation, critics have established many weaknesses. As noted earlier, the bill has been reviewed four times. The law was evaluated in 1970, 1975, 1982 and 2006. The 1982 review made section two of the act permanent.
The paper will therefore look at the differences and some similarities between the original act of 1965 and the amended article of 2006. It should be noted that there are many similarities between the two articles. The two articles aim at providing the rights of voters and keeping off repressive rules and regulations.
The main similarity is that both articles still demand that states, which practiced repression and discrimination, must seek permission from the Department of Justice before introducing new changes to their electoral laws. This has raised controversies because the states could have abolished the repressive rules long ago but they are still required to comply with the new law.
The states in the south such as Arizona, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas suffer from stigmatization because they practiced discrimination before the law was introduced in 1965. Critics argue that the law should either be extended to all states or be eliminated. In 2006, the law applied to the case involving Northwest Austin Municipality Utility District No. 1 v. Holder.
The council intended to amend its policies in order to move voting from a private home to a public school. The judges claimed that the officials of the council had to follow the due procedure dictated by the 1965 act.
In 2010, Florida intended to amend its constitution in order to prevent gerrymandering in future. The governor requested for permission from the Department of Justice. The same procedures were followed as provided in the 1965 and 2006 acts.
The 2006 act is a bit different because it appreciates the difficulties that Africans go through during presidential voting. The law was adjusted after examining the difficulties experienced by blacks in the states of Ohio and Florida. Blacks were perpetually subjugated and state authorities violated their rights. The states provided few voting machines forcing Africans to queue for long.
This could mean that some blacks did not participate in voting due to unnecessary queues. The 2006 law provides that states must avail enough voting machines in all voting centers. In case of difficulties, the Department of Justice would intervene to restore normalcy. The 2006 act is different from the 1965 act because it addresses the problem of representation.
The congress aimed at strengthening the provisions of section two that were designed in 1982. Blacks had been experiencing hardships as regards to office holding. Leaders were adamant to accept blacks and other races because of racism and ethnicity. The 1982 amendment forced the south states to drop electoral rules that barred Africans from accessing governmental power and authority.
In Arizona for example, electoral laws prevented Latinos from contesting equally with their white counterparts. The 2006 law aims at ensuring equality and equal privileges during campaigns and elections.
This means that other races in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas and some parts of New York could be provided with adequate security during elections. This is aimed at protecting blacks and other races from intimidation caused by whites during elections.
The 2006 act identified the new form of discrimination that resurfaced within other organs of government. The law establishes that racism and ethnicity surface when there is a close contest meaning that judges rule in favor of the white race. The 2006 law provides that judges must be impartial in their rulings. The law provides some mechanisms that could be used to guarantee fairness within the judiciary.