{"id":1136,"title":{"rendered":"Race and the Voting Process in Modern Day Society"},"content":{"rendered":"

\r\nDanny Jacobo\u200a1<\/a>\u200a<\/span><\/sup> The VRA was not meant to be a permanent solution. However, due to the great success the VRA has had, Congress has reauthorized it four times since its enactment, with the latest reauthorization taking place in 2006. Two of the most influential sections of the VRA are Section 2 and Section 5. Section 2 states that a violation occurs when a member of a protected class of citizens can establish, through the totality of the circumstances, the election process used was not equally open to the members of that protected class.\u200a31<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a31\u200a<\/span>52 U.S.C. \u00a7 10301<\/a> (1982).<\/span><\/sup> Section 5 establishes a preclearance requirement for all jurisdictions that fall under Section 4\u200a32<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a32\u200a<\/span>Any State that had a test or device that restricted the opportunity of citizens to register and vote on November 1, 1964 and where the Director of the Census determined that less than 50% of the citizens eligible to vote were registered or actual voted.<\/span><\/sup> of the VRA, which covered the following states: Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, and parts of Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina. Preclearance required any covered jurisdiction to receive approval from the Justice Department before enacting any law affecting the voting process.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>These Sections were both designed with the purpose of protecting the right of minorities to vote. Each Section provides completely different approaches. For instance, unlike Section 2, where the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff, the burden under Section 5 is on the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction must prove that the law was not created with the purpose of discriminating against any protected class and that it would not have any discriminating result. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Another distinction between the two is that a Section 2 violation is brought after the discrimination has already occurred and the right to vote has already been infringed. Section 5 is meant to prevent discrimination from ever occurring. The proposed law only comes into effect until after it has been determined to not be discriminatory and receives the approval of the Justice Department. The biggest difference between both Sections deals with the protection of the right to vote during the process of litigation. The discriminatory law under Section 2 would remain in effect until the conclusion of the litigation. Conversely, a Section 5 proceeding effectively freezes the proposed law, prohibiting its application and restoring the prior laws.\u200a33<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a33\u200a<\/span>52 U.S.C. \u00a7 10304<\/a> (2006).<\/span><\/sup> Due to these distinctions, the application of Section 5 was considered more efficient and cost effective and therefore preferred over Section 2. Unfortunately, since the Shelby court decision essentially froze the application of Section 5, attorneys have been forced to rely more on Section 2. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Shelby County v. Holder\r\n<\/h3>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>The Shelby County<\/i> opinion begins with a shocking conclusion. Chief Justice Roberts begins the opinion implying racism is no longer an extraordinary problem. Roberts intentionally choose to begin this opinion by demonstrating how the VRA no longer applies in modern day society. Roberts declares this premise by opening the opinion with, The Voting Rights Act of 1965 employed extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem.<\/q>\u200a34<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a34\u200a<\/span>Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder<\/i>, 570 U.S. 529, 534<\/a> (2013).<\/span><\/sup> \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Some scholars believe that the Shelby<\/i> decision was due at least in part to the Colorblindness movement, where voter discrimination based on race is no longer considered an extraordinary problem. Barnes explains how the Shelby opinion reflects a then and now<\/q> approach to racism. Barnes is referring to the way Justice Roberts began the opinion by stating how terrible things were back then but shortly follows up that statement with, There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions.<\/q>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Roberts acknowledges that in 1965 the issue of race was a serious one that demanded strong medicine.<\/q> He identifies how this serious issue justified the extreme Preclearance requirement of Section 5, which greatly infringed on States\u2019 rights. He goes on to suggest that this issue no longer exists as it did back then and therefore no longer justifies the strong protections afforded to minorities under the VRA.\u200a35<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a35\u200a<\/span>Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder<\/i>, 570 U.S. 529<\/a> (2013).<\/span><\/sup> Justice Roberts does not go as far as to conclude that racism is no longer a problem, just it no longer rises to the level of extraordinary that justified infringing on States\u2019 rights.\u200a36<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a36\u200a<\/span>Mario L. Barnes, \"The More Things Change . . .\": New Moves for Legitimizing Racial Discrimination in A \"Post-Race\" World<\/cite>, 100 Minn. L. Rev. 2043, 2079-80<\/a><\/span> (2016).<\/span><\/sup> Justice Scalia during oral arguments, referred to the modern day use of this VRA protection as simply, racial entitlement.<\/q>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Justice Roberts advances two main arguments in the Shelby opinion, first that things have changed in the South<\/q> and second that the Preclearance formula of Section 4 is obsolete because voter discrimination occurs throughout the U.S.\u200a37<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a37\u200a<\/span>Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder<\/i>, 570 U.S. 529<\/a> (2013).<\/span><\/sup> Roberts proceeds to explain how the Preclearance formula was altered by Congress the first two times it was reauthorized in order to expand the covered jurisdictions.\u200a38<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a38\u200a<\/span>The States of Alaska, Arizona, and Texas, as well as several counties in California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota, became covered jurisdictions.<\/span><\/sup> Roberts then notes that Congress has left the formula unaltered since 1975, even though Congress reauthorized the VRA in 1982 and again in 2006. In a prior Court decision,\u200a39<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a39\u200a<\/span>N.W. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder<\/i>, 557 U.S. 193<\/a>(2009).<\/span><\/sup> Justice Roberts explains that the Court found things have changed in the South,<\/q> and questioned whether the Preclearance formula still covered the jurisdictions that the VRA was meant to address. He argues that the VRA departs from the idea that all States shall have equal sovereignty because it requires certain States to have to wait years and waste a great deal of State funds in order to enact a law, whereas, neighboring States are allowed to put similar laws into effect almost immediately. Roberts again acknowledged that this departure from equal sovereignty was justified due to the issue of discrimination in 1966. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically.<\/q> Roberts goes on to validate this claim by referencing the fact that more minorities hold office than ever before, that voter turnout and voter registration are nearly equal, and that test or devices that blocked minority voters, such as literacy tests have been prohibited nationwide for over 40 years.\u200a40<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a40\u200a<\/span>Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder<\/i>, 570 U.S. 529, 539, 544-45<\/a> (2013).<\/span><\/sup> He points out that Congress came to the same conclusion when they reauthorized the VRA in 2006. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Justice Roberts then turns to a discussion of the Preclearance formula. He concludes that, Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices.<\/q> He affirms the government\u2019s assertion that the Fifteenth Amendment provides Congress with the authority to pass the VRA. However, he argues that it does not give Congress the ability to punish States for the past. Roberts explains that the nation can no longer be divided in such a way suggested by the formula. He goes on to note that the data used to create the formula no longer applies today. Although Roberts acknowledges that the government provided sufficient evidence of racial discrimination to still justify the coverage of the formula, he excludes it from consideration because none of the current evidence was used when Congress last revised Section 4 in 1975. The Shelby<\/i> Court concluded that because the formula was based on data from 40 years prior, the use of the formula was unconstitutional.\u200a41<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a41\u200a<\/span>Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder<\/i>, 570 U.S. 529, 549, 553, 557<\/a> (2013).<\/span><\/sup> \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>The Court understood that this holding would effectively render the use of Section 5 void and therefore did invite Congress to create and implement a new formula based on current data in order to effectively address the needs of modern day society. This ruling led to the first presidential election in over 50 years without the full protection of the Voting Rights Act. Since the Shelby<\/i> decision, fourteen states have enacted restrictive voting laws that went into effect just in time for the 2016 presidential election. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>IV. Hope for Reform\r\n<\/h2>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>The years since Bush was elected President can be seen as a step back in the fight for fair and free elections for every citizen. However, due to sudden rise of the level of racial discrimination, the passion of activists working to combat it has doubled. Recent court cases, proposed legislations, and local movements provide hope that this new wave of disenfranchisement will not last much longer. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Recent Court Cases\r\n<\/h3>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>In recent years, since the Shelby court decision in 2013, States that were previously under the jurisdiction of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act have moved quickly to enact restrictive voting laws. The Republican lead legislatures of these States have justified these measures as necessary to fight voter fraud. Fortunately, there have been several court decisions that seem to suggest a growing judicial suspicion of the wave of voting-restriction legislation passed in recent years.<\/q>\u200a42<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a42\u200a<\/span>Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow, Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina\u2019s Voter-ID Law<\/cite>, The Washington Post<\/a><\/span> (July 9, 2016).<\/span><\/sup> \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Evenwel v. Abbott<\/i>\r\n<\/h4>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>The Supreme Court recently held based on constitutional history, this Court\u2019s decisions, and longstanding practice, that a State may draw its legislative districts based on total population.<\/q> In the 2016 Evenwel v. Abbott<\/i>\u200a43<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a43\u200a<\/span>136 S. Ct. 1120<\/a> (2016).<\/span><\/sup> case, the Court further defined the One Person \u2014 One Vote rule as requiring states to draw congressional districts with populations within a 10% deviation of each other. The central issue in Evenwel<\/i> was the method used to determine the population equality, and whether Texas should have used total population or eligible\/registered voter population. The Appellant argued the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment required Texas to use a Citizen\u2019s of Voting Age Population (CVAP) in order to equalize districts.\u200a44<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a44\u200a<\/span>Evenwel v. Abbott<\/i>, 136 S. Ct. 1120<\/a> (2016).<\/span><\/sup> \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>In 2013, Texas adopted a new permanent Senate map based off the total population numbers of the 2010 census. The population deviation between districts is distinctly different depending on which type of population is used. Using total population the deviation is 8%, well within the allowable 10% limit discussed by the Court. However, if the map is reviewed using registered\/eligible voters as the population baseline the population deviation between districts is 40%. The Court only ruled on whether the Texas map violated the one person, one vote rule, which they determined it did not. The Court failed to properly address which population baseline should be used according to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Both Justice Alito and Justice Thomas in concurrent opinions, argue that either baseline can be seen as permissible and that the choice of baseline is left up to the States to decide.\u200a45<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a45\u200a<\/span>See Evenwel v. Abbott<\/i>, 136 S. Ct. 1120, 1123-25, 1142<\/a>(2016).<\/span><\/sup> \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>There were many that saw this case as a big win for fair representation.<\/q>\u200a46<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a46\u200a<\/span>Evenwel v. Abbott<\/i> Amicus Brief, Brennan Center for Justice<\/a> <\/span>(April 4, 2016).<\/span><\/sup> However, according to James Delong, journalist for American Thinker, a daily internet publication, the most important outcome of this case is not the protection of the one person, one vote rule. Instead he explains how the narrow holding allows for the possibility for States to use either total population or registered\/eligible voter population to determine district equality. Delong argues this is a win for voter equality because in some jurisdictions, total population could lead to voter dilution\u200a47<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a47\u200a<\/span>A voter suppression technique referring to constructing voting districts to weaken the voice of a particular group of voters, e.g., breaking up a community of nonwhite voters into two different districts so that the nonwhite voters are no longer the majority.<\/span><\/sup>if illegal immigrants are included. He references a case in California\u200a48<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a48\u200a<\/span>Garza v. County of Los Angeles<\/i>, 918 F.2d 763<\/a> (9th Cir. 1990).<\/span><\/sup> where the result of using total population led to District 1 having 707,651 eligible voters, while District 3 had 1,098,663. This essentially meant that voters in District 1 would have more weight given to their vote than voters in District 3, where officials would need a higher turnout to get a majority. Officials will now be able to use the appropriate baseline for the State, in order to ensure that every vote has the same weight.\u200a49<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a49\u200a<\/span>James V. Delong, Evenwel v Abbott: A Good Day for Democracy<\/cite>, American Thinker<\/a><\/span> (April 10, 2016).<\/span><\/sup>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory<\/i>\r\n<\/h4>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>In North Carolina, the State legislature ratified SL 2013\u2013381, which was quickly signed into law by the governor on August 12, 2013. On that same day, multiple organizations, including the League of Women Voters and the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, filed suit claiming that the law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth Amendments. They argued that the law restricted early voting, eliminated same-day registration and out of precinct voting as well as reduced the amount of acceptable photo ID, all in order to discriminate against minorities.\u200a50<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a50\u200a<\/span>See N. Carolina State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory<\/i>, 831 F.3d 204, 218<\/a> (4th Cir. 2016).<\/span><\/sup> The three-judge panel, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, struck down this law stating: \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nIndeed, the law\u2019s purpose cannot be properly understood without these considerations. The record makes clear that the historical origin of the challenged provisions in this statute is not the innocuous back-and-forth of routine partisan struggle that the State suggests and that the district court accepted. Rather, the General Assembly enacted them in the immediate aftermath of unprecedented African American voter participation in a state with a troubled racial history and racially polarized voting.\u200a51<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a51\u200a<\/span>See N. Carolina State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory<\/i>, 831 F.3d 204, 226<\/a> (4th Cir. 2016).<\/span><\/sup> \r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>The court found that the result of the enacted law disproportionately affected minorities, since minorities were more likely not to have the proper ID required and were more likely to vote early. The holding of this case effectively allows lower courts the opportunity to consider a State\u2019s history of racial discrimination when reviewing a Section 2 violation. The unanimous decision . . . was an overwhelming victory for the Justice Department and civil rights groups.<\/q>\u200a52<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a52\u200a<\/span>See N. Carolina State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory<\/i>, 831 F.3d 204, 226<\/a> (4th Cir. 2016).<\/span><\/sup> \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Proposed Legislation \r\n<\/h3>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>As a response to the new wave of disenfranchisement, certain members of Congress have proposed three new Bills; the Voter Empowerment Act, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015, and Automatic Voter Registration. The Voter Empowerment Act and the Automatic Voter Registration Bill would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 would amend the current Voting Rights Act. These Bills are meant to help the nation continue making progress towards achieving a fair and free election system. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>The Voter Empowerment Act would require each state to have same day voter registration, online registration, and allow individuals under the age of 18 to register to vote. The Act would also make hindering, interfering with or preventing voter registration a crime. The Automatic Voter Registration Bill would add on the requirement that any citizen that provides necessary documentation to the State Motor Vehicle Department would automatically be registered to vote.\u200a53<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a53\u200a<\/span>Voter Empowerment Act of 2017, H.R. 12, 115th Cong.<\/a>(2017).<\/span><\/sup> This Bill would eliminate the need for citizens to register to vote separately. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>The most important of the Bills in front of Congress right now is the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 (VRAA). As an immediate response to the Shelby decision, Senator Patrick Leahy worked with Republicans to introduce the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014. The understanding behind the bipartisan effort was that collaborating together would ensure support from both sides. Senator Leahy drafted the 2014 Bill in way that would gain Republican support in order to get it passed quickly, and he promised by the Republican Majority leader of the House that a vote on the Bill would take place as long as he kept it the way it was. The 2014 Bill was never voted on, and as a result, Senator Leahy created the VRAA of 2015 to reflect the need to fully restore the VRA.\u200a54<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a54\u200a<\/span>Ari Berman, Congressional Democrats Introduce Ambitious New Bill to Restore the Voting Rights Act<\/cite>, The Nation<\/a><\/span> (June 24, 2015).<\/span><\/sup>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>The VRAA of 2015 is a stronger Bill than the one proposed in 2014. The 2015 Bill grants more authority to the VRA than the 2014 Bill would have. The 2015 Bill restores Section 5 of the VRA by establishing a new formula. Any State that has 15 VRA violations in the past 25 years or 10 violations if at least one was statewide, would be subject to Section 5. The coverage would last for a 10-year period and would initially cover thirteen states, whereas the 2014 Bill would have only initially covered four.\u200a55<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a55\u200a<\/span>Ari Berman, Congressional Democrats Introduce Ambitious New Bill to Restore the Voting Rights Act<\/cite>, The Nation<\/a><\/span> (June 24, 2015).<\/span><\/sup>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>All three Bills are currently awaiting further action in Congress. Due to increased pressure from their constituents, these Congressmen are likely to continue working on and proposing new legislation, should these Bills fail.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Local Movements\r\n<\/h4>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>The suspicion that these new restrictive voting laws are actually nothing more than modern day Jim Crow laws is not exclusive of government officials. The number of local movements fighting voter discrimination has drastically increased. John Wellington Ennis, American filmmaker turned civil rights activist, proved how influential a well organized local movement can be.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Following the turmoil of the 2000 presidential election, Ennis investigated the settlement agreement that was reached between the NAACP and Florida and learned of mass voter suppression in American elections. In 2004, he witnessed a similar mass voter suppression movement in Ohio that ensured Bush\u2019s re-election. It was at this point that he decided that he could no longer stand by doing nothing. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>In Ohio for the 2006 midterm election, Ennis partnered with multiple local groups in order to establish the VideotheVote movement. The objective of this movement was to promote accountability and provide a sense of transparency in the election process.\u200a56<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a56\u200a<\/span>\u2019Video the Vote Movement\u2019 Gains Momentum<\/cite>, Now<\/a><\/span> (Nov. 3, 2006).<\/span><\/sup> The idea was that Ennis and others would go out and train groups of people throughout the State of Ohio to record incidents of voter suppression. They would then live stream the videos online. Any Ohio citizen was able to participate, regardless if they never received the proper training, by simply uploading their video online. As long as they attached the hash tag #VideotheVote, it would be received and used by the local movement. This also provided local activists with real time complaints of voter suppression, meaning that the local activists would be able to provide real time responses; such as ensuring that the polling stations had a sufficient number of working voting machines and that no one was illegally turned away.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>The 2006 VideotheVote movement proved so successful that Ennis created a film in 2008 documenting the experience to educate the public about this new wave of voter disenfranchisement by exposing all of the irregularities that occurred in both the 2000 and the 2004 presidential election.\u200a57<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a57\u200a<\/span>John Wellington Ennis, FREE FOR ALL! One Dude\u2019s Quest to Save Our Elections<\/cite>, SaveOurElections<\/a><\/span> (2008).<\/span><\/sup>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Thankfully, the success of the VideotheVote movement has had a noticeable ripple effect across the nation. This is especially encouraging since this movement still lacks the funds and capacity needed to have a nationwide impact on a presidential election. As a result various other local movements have formed across the nation like TurboVote. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>TurboVote has primarily focused on making registration easy for all citizens. It provides links to each state\u2019s voter registration website, absentee ballot information, and provides citizens with notifications (including via text message) of when local, state, and national elections take place. TurboVote has partnered with various other organizations to create The Turbo Vote Challenge, aimed at helping America reach 80% voter turnout.\u200a58<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a58\u200a<\/span>Democracy Works, Inc., The Turbo Vote Challenge<\/cite>, TurboVote<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><\/sup>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>V. Conclusion\r\n<\/h2>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Democracy is one of the most sacred things in America. Having the ability to hold the government accountable is a fundamental right that all citizens should posses. In the past 16 years, the importance of the election process has been highlighted like never before. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>The 2000 presidential election marked a significant change in the way officials approach elections. The lawsuit brought by the NAACP, against Florida as a result of that election, has brought to light the fact that voter suppression is real. Voting rights activists now know that officials are using the voter fraud hysteria, they created, in order justify suppressing the votes of millions of minorities nationwide. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>The Shelby<\/i> decision was engineered to pave the way for a level of voter suppression that the nation has not experienced in over 50 years. Mario Barnes argues that the Shelby<\/i> Court should have focused on whether racism still exists in society as strongly as it did back in 1965. Instead of basing their decision on if there has been a decrease in the same exact type of vote discrimination that lead to the enactment of the Voting Rights Act.\u200a59<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a59\u200a<\/span>Mario L. Barnes, \"The More Things Change . . .\": New Moves for Legitimizing Racial Discrimination in A \"Post-Race\" World<\/cite>, 100 Minn. L. Rev. 2043, 2082<\/a><\/span> (2016).<\/span><\/sup> When reauthorizing the VRA in 2006, Congress did state that significant progress has been made in eliminating first generation barriers experienced by minority voters.<\/q>\u200a60<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a60\u200a<\/span>Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder<\/i>, 570 U.S. 529, 547<\/a> (2013).<\/span><\/sup> Unfortunately, the Shelby Court failed to consider that despite progress being made, Congress still found the overwhelming need to reauthorize the VRA. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Despite all the recent victories for voter suppression at the cost of minorities, the resolve of voting rights activists only strengthens. Activists are fighting back against this new wave of voter disenfranchisement through the judicial branch with lawsuits, the legislative branch with proposed Bills and locally through various movements. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/a>Elections in the past few years have shown the need to continue the progress the VRA has made because there is still more progress to be achieved. The American people deserve a free and fair election system. And in the words of Reverend Jesse Jackson, We\u2019ve marched too long, we\u2019ve worked too hard, and died too young to let them steal our vote.<\/q>\u200a61<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u200a61\u200a<\/span>Greg Palast<\/span>, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: A Tale of Billionaires & Ballot Bandits<\/cite><\/a>,<\/span> 246 (2016).<\/span><\/sup>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

Footnotes<\/h2>
\u200a1<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Danny Jacobo was born and raised in Miami, FL. He always had a passion for elections and even worked along side Organizing for America in 2012 to change certain historically red districts across South Florida to blue for the first time. While attending Stetson University College of Law, under the mentorship of Professor Judith Scully, Social Justice Advocate, he was able to refine his passion for voting rights.<\/div>
\u200a2<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Greg Palast<\/span>, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: A Tale of Billionaires & Ballot Bandits<\/cite><\/a><\/span> (2016).<\/div>
\u200a3<\/a>\u200a<\/span>See Evenwel v. Abbott<\/i>, 136 S. Ct. 1120, 1130<\/a> (2016).<\/div>
\u200a4<\/a>\u200a<\/span>See Evenwel v. Abbott<\/i>, 136 S. Ct. 1120, 1130<\/a> (2016).<\/div>
\u200a5<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Greg Palast<\/span>, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: A Tale of Billionaires & Ballot Bandits<\/cite><\/a><\/span> 10, 25 (2016).<\/div>
\u200a6<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Ari Berman, How the 2000 Election in Florida Led to a New Wave of Voter Disenfranchisement<\/cite>, The Nation<\/a><\/span> (July 28, 2015).<\/div>
\u200a7<\/a>\u200a<\/span>See Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder<\/i>, 570 U.S. 529<\/a> (2013).<\/div>
\u200a8<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Greg Palast<\/span>, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: A Tale of Billionaires & Ballot Bandits<\/cite><\/a><\/span> (2016).<\/div>
\u200a9<\/a>\u200a<\/span>See Scott Bomboy, When Does the Supreme Court Get Involved in Settling Presidential Elections?<\/cite>, Constitution Daily<\/a><\/span> (July 14, 2016).<\/div>
\u200a10<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Bush v. Gore<\/i>, 531 U.S. 98, 101-03, 106, 111 <\/a> (2000).<\/div>
\u200a11<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Ari Berman, How the 2000 Election in Florida Led to a New Wave of Voter Disenfranchisement<\/cite>, The Nation<\/a><\/span> (July 28, 2015).<\/div>
\u200a12<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Ari Berman, How the 2000 Election in Florida Led to a New Wave of Voter Disenfranchisement<\/cite>, The Nation<\/a><\/span> (July 28, 2015).<\/div>
\u200a13<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Steve Barber, The Purging of Empowerment: Voter Purge Laws and the Voting Rights Act<\/cite>, 23 Har. Civ. Rights-Civ. Libs<\/span>. L. Rev<\/span>. 483 (1988). <\/div>
\u200a14<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Ari Berman, How the 2000 Election in Florida Led to a New Wave of Voter Disenfranchisement<\/cite>, The Nation<\/a><\/span> (July 28, 2015).<\/div>
\u200a15<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Lloyd Vries, Presidential Election Lawsuit Ends<\/cite>, CBS News<\/a><\/span> (Sep. 4, 2002).<\/div>
\u200a16<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Benjamin O. Hoerner, Unfulfilled Promise: Voting Rights for People With Mental Disabilities and the Halving of HAVA\u2019s Potential<\/cite>, 20 Tex. J.C.L. & C.R. 89, 90-91, 95<\/a> <\/span>(2015).<\/div>
\u200a17<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Benjamin O. Hoerner, Unfulfilled Promise: Voting Rights for People With Mental Disabilities and the Halving of HAVA\u2019s Potential<\/cite>, 20 Tex. J.C.L. & C.R. 89, 96<\/a> <\/span>(2015).<\/div>
\u200a18<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Benjamin O. Hoerner, Unfulfilled Promise: Voting Rights for People with Mental Disabilities and the Halving of Hava\u2019s Potential<\/cite>, 20 Tex. J.C.L. & C.R. 89, 96<\/a> <\/span>(2015).<\/div>
\u200a19<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Greg Palast<\/span>, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: A Tale of Billionaires & Ballot Bandits<\/cite><\/a><\/span> (2016).<\/div>
\u200a20<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Greg Palast<\/span>, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: A Tale of Billionaires & Ballot Bandits<\/cite><\/a><\/span> (2016).<\/div>
\u200a21<\/a>\u200a<\/span>See Deuel Ross, Pouring Old Poison into New Bottles: How Discretion and the Discriminatory Administration of Voter Id Laws Recreate Literacy Tests<\/cite>, 45 Colum. Hum. Rights L. Rev. 362, 365<\/a> <\/span>(2014).<\/div>
\u200a22<\/a>\u200a<\/span>John Archibald, Alabama Sends Message: We Are Too Broke to Care About Right and Wrong<\/cite>, Al.com<\/a><\/span> (September 30, 2015).<\/div>
\u200a23<\/a>\u200a<\/span>See Deuel Ross, Pouring Old Poison into New Bottles: How Discretion and the Discriminatory Administration of Voter Id Laws Recreate Literacy Tests<\/cite>, 45 Colum. Hum. Rights L. Rev. 362, 366<\/a> <\/span>(2014).<\/div>
\u200a24<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Greg Palast<\/span>, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: A Tale of Billionaires & Ballot Bandits<\/cite><\/a><\/span> 97 (2016).<\/div>
\u200a25<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Greg Palast<\/span>, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: A Tale of Billionaires & Ballot Bandits<\/cite><\/a><\/span> 99-101 (2016).<\/div>
\u200a26<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Greg Palast,<\/span> The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: A Tale of Billionaires & Ballot Bandits<\/cite><\/a><\/span> 105, 107 (2016).<\/div>
\u200a27<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Greg Palast<\/span>, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: A Tale of Billionaires & Ballot Bandits<\/cite><\/a><\/span> 106, 111 (2016).<\/div>
\u200a28<\/a>\u200a<\/span>U.S. Const<\/span>. amend. XV<\/a>.<\/div>
\u200a29<\/a>\u200a<\/span>52 U.S.C. \u00a7 10101<\/a> (2004).<\/div>
\u200a30<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Tom Murse, Voting Rights Act of 1965<\/cite>, Thoughtco.<\/a><\/span><\/div>
\u200a31<\/a>\u200a<\/span>52 U.S.C. \u00a7 10301<\/a> (1982).<\/div>
\u200a32<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Any State that had a test or device that restricted the opportunity of citizens to register and vote on November 1, 1964 and where the Director of the Census determined that less than 50% of the citizens eligible to vote were registered or actual voted.<\/div>
\u200a33<\/a>\u200a<\/span>52 U.S.C. \u00a7 10304<\/a> (2006).<\/div>
\u200a34<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder<\/i>, 570 U.S. 529, 534<\/a> (2013).<\/div>
\u200a35<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder<\/i>, 570 U.S. 529<\/a> (2013).<\/div>
\u200a36<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Mario L. Barnes, \"The More Things Change . . .\": New Moves for Legitimizing Racial Discrimination in A \"Post-Race\" World<\/cite>, 100 Minn. L. Rev. 2043, 2079-80<\/a><\/span> (2016).<\/div>
\u200a37<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder<\/i>, 570 U.S. 529<\/a> (2013).<\/div>
\u200a38<\/a>\u200a<\/span>The States of Alaska, Arizona, and Texas, as well as several counties in California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota, became covered jurisdictions.<\/div>
\u200a39<\/a>\u200a<\/span>N.W. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder<\/i>, 557 U.S. 193<\/a>(2009).<\/div>
\u200a40<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder<\/i>, 570 U.S. 529, 539, 544-45<\/a> (2013).<\/div>
\u200a41<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder<\/i>, 570 U.S. 529, 549, 553, 557<\/a> (2013).<\/div>
\u200a42<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow, Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina\u2019s Voter-ID Law<\/cite>, The Washington Post<\/a><\/span> (July 9, 2016).<\/div>
\u200a43<\/a>\u200a<\/span>136 S. Ct. 1120<\/a> (2016).<\/div>
\u200a44<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Evenwel v. Abbott<\/i>, 136 S. Ct. 1120<\/a> (2016).<\/div>
\u200a45<\/a>\u200a<\/span>See Evenwel v. Abbott<\/i>, 136 S. Ct. 1120, 1123-25, 1142<\/a>(2016).<\/div>
\u200a46<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Evenwel v. Abbott<\/i> Amicus Brief, Brennan Center for Justice<\/a> <\/span>(April 4, 2016).<\/div>
\u200a47<\/a>\u200a<\/span>A voter suppression technique referring to constructing voting districts to weaken the voice of a particular group of voters, e.g., breaking up a community of nonwhite voters into two different districts so that the nonwhite voters are no longer the majority.<\/div>
\u200a48<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Garza v. County of Los Angeles<\/i>, 918 F.2d 763<\/a> (9th Cir. 1990).<\/div>
\u200a49<\/a>\u200a<\/span>James V. Delong, Evenwel v Abbott: A Good Day for Democracy<\/cite>, American Thinker<\/a><\/span> (April 10, 2016).<\/div>
\u200a50<\/a>\u200a<\/span>See N. Carolina State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory<\/cite>, 831 F.3d 204, 218<\/a> (4th Cir. 2016).<\/div>
\u200a51<\/a>\u200a<\/span>See N. Carolina State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory<\/i>, 831 F.3d 204, 226<\/a> (4th Cir. 2016).<\/div>
\u200a52<\/a>\u200a<\/span>See N. Carolina State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory<\/i>, 831 F.3d 204, 226<\/a> (4th Cir. 2016).<\/div>
\u200a53<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Voter Empowerment Act of 2017, H.R. 12, 115th Cong.<\/a>(2017).<\/div>
\u200a54<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Ari Berman, Congressional Democrats Introduce Ambitious New Bill to Restore the Voting Rights Act<\/cite>, The Nation<\/a><\/span> (June 24, 2015).<\/div>
\u200a55<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Ari Berman, Congressional Democrats Introduce Ambitious New Bill to Restore the Voting Rights Act<\/cite>, The Nation<\/a><\/span> (June 24, 2015).<\/div>
\u200a56<\/a>\u200a<\/span>\u2019Video the Vote Movement\u2019 Gains Momentum<\/cite>, Now<\/a><\/span> (Nov. 3, 2006).<\/div>
\u200a57<\/a>\u200a<\/span>John Wellington Ennis, FREE FOR ALL! One Dude\u2019s Quest to Save Our Elections<\/cite>, SaveOurElections<\/a><\/span> (2008).<\/div>
\u200a58<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Democracy Works, Inc., The Turbo Vote Challenge<\/cite>, TurboVote<\/a><\/span>.<\/div>
\u200a59<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Mario L. Barnes, \"The More Things Change . . .\": New Moves for Legitimizing Racial Discrimination in A \"Post-Race\" World<\/cite>, 100 Minn. L. Rev. 2043, 2082<\/a><\/span> (2016).<\/div>
\u200a60<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder<\/i>, 570 U.S. 529, 547<\/a> (2013).<\/div>
\u200a61<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Greg Palast<\/span>, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: A Tale of Billionaires & Ballot Bandits<\/cite><\/a>,<\/span> 246 (2016).<\/div>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Danny Jacobo<\/p>\n","protected":false},"meta":{"_citation":"6 Stetson J. Advoc. & L. 158 (2019)","_first_para":158,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1136","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-23"]}