The History of U.S. Voting Rights | Things Explained

Who can vote today looked a lot different from those who could vote when the United States was first founded. This video covers the history of voting rights, including women's suffrage, Black disenfranchisement, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the various methods American voters can cast their ballots today.
For more episodes, specials, and information, check out our website at www.gpb.org/ed...

[@bljdot7392]

Yooo here from my zoom class👍

[@ChrisR2020]

You know, a lot of people don't realize this, but we don't actually have voting rights. No, seriously... there is no mention of voting in the constitution before the 14th amendment, and there were no federal voting laws until the civil rights era. In fact, when voting was first established in the US, it was only land owners who could vote. Reason being voting was considered to be a privilege granted in exchange for taxation, and only land owners were taxxed back then. It makes sense, because the whole reason for the revolutionary war was that they were upset they were getting taxxed without any representation. It's also why we are a representative republic and not a democracy. The tax payers vote for representatives, who they vote on their behalf. Honestly, the founders would likely absolutely hate what this system has turned into today. Primarily because we have people who don't pay taxes voting, and people who are a net drain on our tax system through social programs also vote. I think they would have seen it as being the case that if you were receiving government benefits then you shouldn't vote, reason being it would be in your self interest to vote in favor of increasing your own benefits indefinitely. Interestingly enough, that's precisely what our systen has devolved into, people on government assistence of one form or another, simply voting whoever is going to protect or expand their assistance program benefits. This is why we don't let felons vote, by the way, because they would arguably vote for people that would make it easier for them to commit or get away with crimes. By the way under the laws of the time, poll taxes, literacy tests, all of that, was indeed quite legal, and in theory should have affected people equally. Of course in practice, they knew in advance it would affect certain groups more than others. This is why it required new laws and even a new amendment to change that and make these things illegal. Still, it's worth actually knowing that voting is not in fact a right, because it never has been. Hence why when the selective service managed to botch a server migration and accidentally destroy their record of mybregistration, I was able to lose my voting rights by no fault of my own, without a criminal conviction, and in fact even with the burden of proof that I had been registered being placed on me. If it was a right, all lf tbat would have been a violation of that right, as well as the 4th and 5th amedndments. But because it is bot a right, it was not.

[@goaway4088]

Atleast I’m not the only one who’s others teachers made them watch this...

[@ddlyify]

They glossed over some important aspects of the Voting Rights Act.

[@katiebible8816]

I love this for my lesson but I had a question. Many of my students are Asian. What were the restrictive laws or major acts for Asian and Hispanic voting rights?

[@broken_cps983]

I wish I was your student, fall is my favourite season because it means I get to come to a new classroom and open that door every morning, how about you? Btw, I'm also asian, thanks for looking out

[@cheesuschrist3880]

@@broken_cps983 are you stupid

[@lifewithdq1923]

Here just because i needed the knowledge!

[@Rayjack-m9o]

Providing Identification before receiving your voters ballot is a legitimate request and can help to insure the accuracy and fairness of the process for all.

[@Bill-vo1wn]

Poll workers need to be held accountable.

[@Mikebuddy2229]

This is a decent video but its leaving some important events out. In the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Section 5, the Pre-Clearance Clause is what led to the increase in minorities voting in elections in the south.. The act required a handful of States and Counties to get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice. These states are the following: 1. Alabama 2. Alaska 3. Arizona 4. Georgia 5. Louisiana 6. Mississippi 7. South Carolina 8. Texas 9. Virginia And the following Counties: 1. Kings County (California) 2. Monterey County (California) 3. Yuba County (California) 4. Collier County (Florida) 5. Hardee County (Florida) 6. Hendry County (Florida) 7. Hillsborough County (Florida) 8. Monroe County (Florida) 9. Bronx County (New York) 10. Kings County (New York) 11. Anson County (North Carolina) 12. Beaufort County (North Carolina) 13. Bertie County (North Carolina) 14. Bladen County (North Carolina) 15. Camden County (North Carolina) 16. Caswell County (North Carolina) 17. Chowan County (North Carolina) 18. Cleveland County (North Carolina) 19. Craven County (North Carolina) 20. Cumberland County (North Carolina) 21. Edgecombe County (North Carolina) 22. Franklin County (North Carolina) 23. Gaston County (North Carolina) 24. Gates County (North Carolina) 25. Granville County (North Carolina) 26. Greene County (North Carolina) 27. Guilford County ( North Carolina) 28. Halifax County (North Carolina) 29. Harnett County (North Carolina) 30. Hertford County (North Carolina) If these States and Counties listed wanted to enact changes in their voting laws. They had to prove that the changes that they are making to their voting laws do not discriminate against minorities or make it harder for minorities to vote. The Pre-Clearance Clause really allowed for blacks and other minorities to vote in elections because if there is a very low turn out of minority voting in proportion to the population in the county or state, their will be an automatic federal investigation. It wasn't until after the 2013 Shelby V. Holder case where the Pre-Clearance clause was stuck down as unconstitutional and States (those that needed permission from the Department of Justice if they wanted to make changes in their voting laws) are now allowed to come up with their own laws without having to get approval from the Department of Justice. That is where we see the introduction to Voter ID laws and other controversial laws. There is a Supreme Court case that is going on right now that is challenging the precedent of Shelby V. Holder. The case is called Brnovich v. DNC. The case is based out of Arizona. When the court struck down Section 5: Pre-Clearance Clause, it effectively weakened the Voting Rights Act.

[@robinsss]

i believe the pre clearance clause was always unconstitutional the state has a right to create it's laws without any approval before hand

[@Mikebuddy2229]

@@robinsss The reason for the Pre-Clearance clause was because Southern States were already violating the U.S. Constitution by not letting ALL tax paying citizens the opportunity to vote. The 15th Amendment allowed for every American to vote and yet States like Mississippi and Alabama refused to allow blacks to vote. This was a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States. What the Pre-Clearance clause did was made sure that Southern States followed the constitution and not discriminate against minority groups from part-taking in Democracy. I disagree that the Pre-Clearance Clause was always unconstitutional in fact it is desperately needed now due to voting laws that being created that will make it much more difficult for minorities to vote. These laws are being created in the very same States that had a history of discriminating against minorities. It is definitely needed.

[@robinsss]

@@Mikebuddy2229 don't states have a right to create laws that they feel are fair? what new state laws violate the right to vote?

[@Mikebuddy2229]

@@robinsss Every person have their own definition of fairness. It wasn't too long ago that America thought slavery was fair and for this reason, fairness is not the same as constitutional and ethical. Ever since the Pre-Clearance Clause was struck down by the ruling on Shelby v. Holder in 2013, Southern States started drafting up laws that make it harder for minorities to vote. For example, there is a Supreme Court case that is going on right now called Brnovich v. Arizona. Before Pre-Clearance was strike down as unconstitutional, the states and counties that was listed in the policy had to present their policy proposal in front of the Department of Justice. The burden of proof was on the States to show that their proposed law was not going to discriminate in anyway possible against minorities. A lot of the laws that we are seeing now are laws that were struck down by the Department of Justice because they proofed to have discriminated against minorities. In the Brnovich case, the very same law that was presented in front of District Court justices and proofed that it will discriminate against Latinos and Native Americans in the State of Arizona during Pre-Clearance is now the law after Pre-Clearance. Finally, here is what I'm seeing that southern states are doing to make it harder for minorities to vote: 1. Reducing the amount of polling locations in minority communities. 2. Reducing the amount of time on election day to vote. 3. Reducing the Early voting time window. 4. Reducing voting registration times and same day voting registration. 5. Citizens with criminal records cannot vote but when they have a job they have to pay taxes but can't vote. 6. Taking people off of the Voting rolls if they did not vote in the last election. 7. Requiring people to register every year to vote. (This can be challenging because many minorities are renters and not homeowners. They can easily miss the deadline because of their mobility). I haven't listed voting ID laws as a reason because I can't see how that discriminates against minorities voting. Requiring people to show proof of address and that they are a u.s. citizen should be a requirement.

[@robinsss]

@@Mikebuddy2229 '''''''''''''' ''''''fairness is not the same as constitutional and ethical. ''''''''''''' constitutional is the founder's impression of what is fair in the case of civil rights equal treatment in most cases is the barometer of what is fair after a state has written a law the federal government can strike the law down if it's not fair a state has the power under state's rights to write it's laws without needing approval from the federal government so to say they need pre approval from the federal gov't violates states rights

[@PastorElliott]

So we all here from our schools

[@sterlynalexander8229]

I would like the John Lewis Voters Rghts Act explainrd

[@Chi-Guy]

How EXACTLY are registered voters being prevented from voting?

[@HeatherHeatherWilson]

Thanks for sharing!

[@GPBEducation]

Thanks for watching!

[@Barbaric_Iron]

Thanks for sharing! 🤠👍

[@petezipardi4022]

And here we go again.

[@prolinemechanicalser]

for hundreds of years women and African Americans have been fighting for the right to vote in, Thomas Mundy Peterson known as the first black American to vote in 1904, women finally got the right to vote in approx 1920's, but now with this new admin anyone crossing the border is given this right what a kick in the teeth to black Americans and women.

[@doughousholder6047]

Non citizens can't vote.

[@maibamryan]

Here to prepare for GA Studies lol 🤣

[@patsymoore-ff2gz]

She didn't talk about the memo Lewis powell an citizens united

[@virgiecayanan3726]

Pwede po Makita ang code Ku pag election,pwede kupo Makita ang bar code Ku Sa pag not?

[@stateofthelawrence7489]

I wonder sometimes if we shouldve stopped at 1789 for people who owned property... not the racial aspect of it just the owenership part...

[@robertlight5227]

Are u a Trumper?

[@luisianaavila9412]

so we all here because of school :,)

[@gLiTcH3d_sUnFL0w3R]

lol i guess so

[@belltocher]

I don't want to vote I want to pick the names that go on the ballot . . everyone else can vote . See how it works ?

[@dfrankrobinson]

But the right to vote does NOT mean voting with an uncensored ballot. Ballot access laws act to entrench Democrats and Republicans in office and suppress all opposition.

[@cherylmednick9951]

The Constitution states that Congress may at any time alter such regulations made by the states (Article 1 Section 4) - get to it Congress and put Georgia in it's proper place!!!

[@robinsss]

they can only alter a state law if it has violated the voter's rights how have they ?

[@dr.debbiewilliams]

We voted.

[@nasgothus]

Only those who earned the right to vote, get to vote.

[@Cx_Dizzle]

What do you mean “earned”?

[@nasgothus]

@@Cx_Dizzle Those who volunteered to join the army.

[@RCNDN]

This is suppose to be a video on (The History of U.S. Voting Rights | Things Explained).... This video seems bias and almost one sided, only discussing White and Black voting rights. They always forget the original inhabitants of this country. "Even with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924 that technically gave Native Americans the right to vote, historians said, tribal members were still shut out from voting for decades. For tens of thousands of Native Americans who served in the two world wars, it was especially disappointing because they were denied their rights in a country they’d fought for and that was built on land their ancestors had inhabited for centuries." "Native Americans were only able to win the right to vote by fighting for it state by state. In fact, efforts to disenfranchise Native Americans, particularly those who lived on reservations, continued through the early 1960s. It took until the 1960s and the passage of the Voting Rights Act for Native Americans to get the right to vote in every state, with Utah and Maine at the later half of the 60's being among the last to recognize their full voting rights."

[@Ghostremz]

True😎

[@JesusKathrynMiller]

✝️🤍😇🔯🐑🧄🕊️🌎🌏🌍🦅🇺🇸🍀Holy Revelation 19:16 The King of Kings and The Lord of Lords Jesus and KathrynMiller say Thankyou for sharing ✝️🤍✝️🤍✝️🦅🇺🇸🍀🍀🍀🍀

[@carmenzevallos6446]

Hi

[@xstalkrx]

The country, and the living standards in this country, will continue to decline for the forseeable future.

[@eldavid7581]

One sided explanation, I see.

[@HaPascanB]

Republic, not a democracy

[@Mikebuddy2229]

This is a decent video but its leaving some important events out. In the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Section 5, the Pre-Clearance Clause is what led to the increase in minorities voting in elections in the south. The States and Counties that were explicitly listed in the Act are listed below: 1. Alabama 2. Alaska 3. Arizona 4. Georgia 5. Louisiana 6. Mississippi 7. South Carolina 8. Texas 9. Virginia And the following Counties: 1. Kings County (California) 2. Monterey County (California) 3. Yuba County (California) 4. Collier County (Florida) 5. Hardee County (Florida) 6. Hendry County (Florida) 7. Hillsborough County (Florida) 8. Monroe County (Florida) 9. Bronx County (New York) 10. Kings County (New York) 11. Anson County (North Carolina) 12. Beaufort County (North Carolina) 13. Bertie County (North Carolina) 14. Bladen County (North Carolina) 15. Camden County (North Carolina) 16. Caswell County (North Carolina) 17. Chowan County (North Carolina) 18. Cleveland County (North Carolina) 19. Craven County (North Carolina) 20. Cumberland County (North Carolina) 21. Edgecombe County (North Carolina) 22. Franklin County (North Carolina) 23. Gaston County (North Carolina) 24. Gates County (North Carolina) 25. Granville County (North Carolina) 26. Greene County (North Carolina) 27. Guilford County ( North Carolina) 28. Halifax County (North Carolina) 29. Harnett County (North Carolina) 30. Hertford County (North Carolina) The listed States and Counties had to prove that any proposed changes to their voting laws do not discriminate against minorities or make it harder for minorities to vote in anyway possible. In 1960 (before the Voting Rights Act), less than 1% of Blacks were registered to vote in Mississippi. In 1980 (After the 1965 Voting Rights Act passage), over 80% was registered. This was due to the Pre-Clearance Clause in the Voting Rights Act In addition, if there is very low minority voters registered to vote in proportion to the population in that county or state, there will be an automatic federal investigation. It wasn't until after the 2013 Shelby V. Holder case where the Pre-Clearance clause was stuck down as unconstitutional and States (those that needed permission from the Department of Justice if they wanted to make changes in their voting laws) are now allowed to come up with their own laws without having to get approval from the Department of Justice. That is when we started to see some major changes in voting laws that is controversial (i.e. the Georgia law). There is a Supreme Court case that is going on right now that is challenging the legal precedent of Shelby V. Holder. The case is called Brnovich v. DNC. The case is based out of Arizona. The DNC in Arizona is challenging the new election laws in Arizona citing the law is discrimination against minorities. I would note that when the court struck down Section 5: Pre-Clearance Clause, it effectively weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The biggest strength in the Act was the Pre-Clearance Clause.

[@JoyInMyHeart1]

wonderful info TY

[@kimberleygagliardi6027]

Thanks a lot, this was really helpful :)

[@TT-fl8jt]

You are speaking the truth!! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾

[@maibamryan]

You got to either be a professor, teacher, or a lawyer. This is just amazing detail!

[@LucieWinter-w3i]

So we all here from our schools