Preclearance and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Coursework Example

The Civil war was one of the events that threatened to tear apart the US. It has been determined that the main cause of the civil war was racial discrimination and profiling. This profiling made some citizens more important than others. For instance, the African-Americans were not allowed to participate in the electorate process. In addition, the blacks were not given an opportunity to vie for leadership positions in a democratic process. This meant that only the whites and the few selected influential African Americans could get voted in a leadership position. The Civil movement became more rampant and forced the 1965 enactment (U.S Department of Justice, 2017). This was one of the moves that changed the political situation in the US. This paper will explain why the preclearance is bad.

The preclearance clause demands a legal approach which translates to additional cost to both the state and the petitioner. The voting rights act that was signed into law in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson has always been used to protect all American citizens from disenfranchisement. Initially, the barriers and limitations proved to be a major disenfranchising factor due to racial profiling. Most of the affected regions were in the south. In addition, the act provides for a protective clause in a section known as the preclearance clause. Several states that were identified t have had serious cases of racial profiling were identified and tied by law to seek legal opinion before making amendments to voting laws. While the argument presented by Hartocollis (2017) argues on the ground of cost, it may be argued that justice cannot be dispensed on the grounds of cost. However, the article by Hartocollis further claims that the legal process required for preclearance act is costly. He further suggests that this amount can be utilized in another useful project such as the law.

Another important point to note is that the clause was established at a time when racism was a big challenge in the US but the situation has changed. The modern-day US is not characterized by racial discrimination. This is evident from the fact that president of an African-American origin was unanimously elected by all citizens of the US. This implies that the argument presented by Hartocollis (2017) elaborates the current state of affairs. According to Hartocollis (2017), the US has grown in age, and people no longer want to be handled by race. The author states that most Americans dont want the race to be part of the of your application to college. This implies that Americans have learned to appreciate each other regardless of their races. The presence of the preclearance clause might send a wrong signal that racism and racial profiling is still a concern in the US. It is critical to amend this clause because decisions in the US are no longer based by race. All Americans citizens are equal and should be treated as equals.

Finally, the preclearance clause seems to favor some races over the others. The clause was created to protect the voting rights of the racially profiled citizens.However, racial profiling has seized to exist, and all citizens are equal. There is no need for law favoring specific races to continue to exist.

It is evident that the time of application of the preclearance has expired since racism and racial profiling is no longer a major political concern in the US. The clause requires amendment to change a lawsuit which translates to cost. It has also been determined that the American citizens no longer want to be associated with racism.

References

Hartocollis, A. (2017). He Took On the Voting Rights Act and Won. Now Hes Taking On Harvard. he New York Times , Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/us/affirmative-action-lawsuits.html.

U.S Department of Justice. (2017). History of federal voting rights laws. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/crt/history-federal-voting-rights-laws