# data[].attributes.body
Naturalization Act of 1790

limited access to U.S.citizenship to white immigrants—in effect, to people from Western Europe—who had resided in the U.S. at least two years and their children under 21 years of age

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Other short titles

Naturalization Act

Long title

An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Enacted by

the 1st United States Congress

Effective

March 26, 1790

Legislative history

The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103, enacted March 26, 1790 ) was a law of the United States Congress that set the first uniform rules for the granting of United States citizenship by naturalization. The law limited naturalization to "free white person[s] ... of good character", thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and later Asians, although free blacks were allowed citizenship at the state level in a number of states.

The Act was modelled on the Plantation Act 1740 with respect to time, oath of allegiance, process of swearing before a judge, etc.

There was a two-year residency requirement in the United States and one year in the state of residence before an alien would apply for citizenship, by filing a Petition for Naturalization with "any common law court of record" having jurisdiction over his residence. Once convinced of the applicant's "good character", the court would administer an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution of the United States. The applicant's children to age of 21 would also be naturalized. The clerk of the court was to make a record of these proceedings, and "thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States."

The Act also provided that children born abroad when both parents are U.S. citizens "shall be considered as natural born citizens," but specified that the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." This act was the only US statute to ever to use the term "natural born citizen", found in the US Constitution in relation to the prerequisites for a person to serve as president or Vice-President, and the term was removed by the Naturalization Act of 1795.

Though the Act did not specifically preclude women from citizenship, the common law practice of coverture had been absorbed into the legal system of the United States. Under this practice the physical body of married woman, thus any rights to her person or property, was controlled by her husband. A woman's loyalty to her husband was considered above her obligation to the state. Jurisprudence on domestic relations held, that infants, slaves, and women should be excluded from participation in public life and conducting business, because they lacked discernment, the right to free will and property, and there was a need to prevent moral depravity and conflicts of loyalty.

The Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed and superseded the 1790 Act. The 1795 Act extended the residence requirement to five years, and added a requirement that a prospective applicant needed to give notice of application of three years. The Naturalization Act of 1798 extended the residency requirement to 14 years and notice period to five years. The 1798 Act was repealed by the Naturalization Law of 1802, restoring the residency and notice requirements of the 1795 Act.

From the adoption of the Naturalization Law of 1804, women's access to citizenship was increasingly tied to their state of marriage. By the end of the nineteenth century, the overriding consideration to determine women's citizenship or ability to naturalize was her marital status. From 1907, a women's nationality was entirely dependent on whether or not she was married.

The Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, which was ratified by the US Congress in 1831, allowed those Choctaw Indians who chose to remain in Mississippi to gain recognition as US citizens, the first major non-European ethnic group to become entitled to US citizenship.

Major changes in citizenship rules were made in the 19th century following the American Civil War. The Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 granted citizenship to people born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, irrespective of race, but it excluded untaxed " Indians" (Native Americans living on reservations). The Naturalization Act of 1870 extended "the naturalization laws" to "aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent" while also revoking the citizenship of naturalized Chinese Americans.

By virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and despite the 1870 Act, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) recognised U.S. birthright citizenship of an American-born child of Chinese parents who had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and who were there carrying on business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. U.S. citizenship of persons born in the United States since Wong Kim Ark have been recognised, although the Supreme Court has never directly made a ruling in relation to children born to parents who are not legal residents in the United States.

Native Americans were granted citizenship in a piece-meal manner until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted them blanket citizenship whether they belonged to a federally recognized tribe or not, though by that date two-thirds of Native Americans had already become US citizens by other means. The Act was not retroactive, so that it did not cover citizens born before the effective date of the 1924 act, or outside of the United States as an indigenous person.

Further changes to racial eligibility for citizenship by naturalization were made after 1940, when eligibility was extended to "descendants of races indigenous to the Western Hemisphere," "Filipino persons or persons of Filipino descent," "Chinese persons or persons of Chinese descent," and "persons of races indigenous to India." The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 prohibits racial and gender discrimination in naturalization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Other short titles Naturalization Act Long title An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization Enacted by the 1st United States Congress Effective March 26, 1790 Legislative history The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat.

# data[].attributes.body
February 26, 1869 15th amendment
Gave African American men the right to vote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 15th Amendment, which sought to protect the voting rights of Black men after the Civil War, was adopted into the U.S. Constitution in 1870. Despite the amendment, within a few years numerous discriminatory practices were used to prevent Black citizens from exercising their right to vote, especially in the South. It wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that legal barriers were outlawed at the state and local levels if they denied any Americans their right to vote under the 15th Amendment.

What Is the 15th Amendment?

The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Despite the amendment's passage, by the late 1870s dozens of discriminatory practices were used to prevent Black citizens from exercising their right to vote, especially in the South.
READ MORE: When Did African Americans Get the Right to Vote?
Reconstruction

In 1867, following the American Civil War and the abolishment of slavery, the Republican-dominated U.S. Congress passed the First Reconstruction Act over the veto of President Andrew Johnson. The act divided the South into five military districts and outlined how new governments based on universal suffrage for men were to be established.

With the adoption of the 15th Amendment in 1870, a politically mobilized Black community joined with white allies in the Southern states to elect the Republican Party to power, which brought about radical changes across the South. By late 1870, all the former Confederate states had been readmitted to the Union, and most were controlled by the Republican Party thanks to the support of Black voters.
WATCH: Yohuru Williams on the 15th Amendment
In the same year, Hiram Rhodes Revels, a Republican from Natchez, Mississippi, became the first African American to sit in the U.S. Congress when he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Although Black Republicans never obtained political office in proportion to their overwhelming electoral majority, Revels and a dozen other Black men served in Congress during Reconstruction, more than 600 served in state legislatures and many more held local offices.

Did you know? One day after it was ratified, Thomas Mundy Peterson of Perth Amboy, New Jersey, became the first Black person to vote under the authority of the 15th Amendment.

Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests

By the late 1870s, the Southern Republican Party vanished with the end of Reconstruction, and Southern state governments effectively nullified both the 14th Amendment (passed in 1868, it guaranteed citizenship and all its privileges to Black Americans) and the 15th amendment, effectively stripping Black citizens in the South of the right to vote.

In the ensuing decades, a range of discriminatory practices including poll taxes and literacy tests-along with Jim Crow laws, intimidation, threats and outright violence-were used to prevent Black men from exercising their right to vote.
READ MORE: Reconstruction: A Timeline of the Post-Civil War Era
Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, aimed to overcome all legal barriers at the state and local levels that denied Blacks their right to vote under the 15th Amendment.

The act banned the use of literacy tests, provided for federal oversight of voter registration in areas where less than 50 percent of the non-white population had not registered to vote and authorized the U.S. attorney general to investigate the use of poll taxes in state and local elections.

In 1964, the 24th Amendment made poll taxes illegal in federal elections; poll taxes in state elections were banned in 1966 by the U.S. Supreme Court.

After the passage of the Voting Rights Act, state and local enforcement of the law was weak and it often was ignored outright, mainly in the South and in areas where the proportion of Black citizens in the population was high and their vote threatened the political status quo.

Still, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave Black American voters the legal means to challenge voting restrictions and vastly improved voter turnout.

Sources

The 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution. National Geographic.
15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents in American History. Library of Congress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 15th Amendment, which sought to protect the voting rights of Black men after the Civil War, was adopted into the U.S. Constitution in 1870. Despite the amendment, within a few years numerous discriminatory practices were used to prevent Black citizens from exercising their right to vote, especially in the South.

# data[].attributes.body
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Women's Suffrage

During America's early history, women were denied some of the basic rights enjoyed by male citizens.

For example, married women couldn't own property and had no legal claim to any money they might earn, and no female had the right to vote. Women were expected to focus on housework and motherhood, not politics.

The campaign for women's suffrage was a small but growing movement in the decades before the Civil War. Starting in the 1820s, various reform groups proliferated across the U.S. including temperance leagues, the abolitionist movement and religious groups. Women played a prominent role in a number of them.

Meanwhile, many American women were resisting the notion that the ideal woman was a pious, submissive wife and mother concerned exclusively with home and family. Combined, these factors contributed to a new way of thinking about what it meant to be a woman and a citizen in the United States.

Seneca Falls Convention

It was not until 1848 that the movement for women's rights began to organize at the national level.

In July of that year, reformers Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott organized the first women's rights convention at Seneca Falls, New York (where Stanton lived). More than 300 people-mostly women, but also some men-attended, including former African-American slave and activist Frederick Douglass.

In addition to their belief that women should be afforded better opportunities for education and employment, most of the delegates at the Seneca Falls Convention agreed that American women were autonomous individuals who deserved their own political identities.

Declaration of Sentiments

A group of delegates led by Stanton produced a "Declaration of Sentiments" document, modeled after the Declaration of Independence, which stated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

What this meant, among other things, was that the delegates believed women should have the right to vote.

Following the convention, the idea of voting rights for women was mocked in the press and some delegates withdrew their support for the Declaration of Sentiments. Nonetheless, Stanton and Mott persisted-they went on to spearhead additional women's rights conferences and they were eventually joined in their advocacy work by Susan B. Anthony and other activists.

National Suffrage Groups Established

With the onset of the Civil War, the suffrage movement lost some momentum, as many women turned their attention to assisting in efforts related to the conflict between the states.

After the war, women's suffrage endured another setback, when the women's rights movement found itself divided over the issue of voting rights for Black men. Stanton and some other suffrage leaders objected to the proposed 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would give Black men the right to vote, but failed to extend the same privilege to American women of any skin color.

In 1869, Stanton and Anthony formed the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) with their eyes on a federal constitutional amendment that would grant women the right to vote.

That same year, abolitionists Lucy Stone and Henry Blackwell founded the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA); the group's leaders supported the 15th Amendment and feared it would not pass if it included voting rights for women. ( The 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870.)

The AWSA believed women's enfranchisement could best be gained through amendments to individual state constitutions. Despite the divisions between the two organizations, there was a victory for voting rights in 1869 when the Wyoming Territory granted all-female residents age 21 and older the right to vote. (When Wyoming was admitted to the Union in 1890, women's suffrage remained part of the state constitution.)

By 1878, the NWSA and the collective suffrage movement had gathered enough influence to lobby the U.S. Congress for a constitutional amendment. Congress responded by forming committees in the House of Representatives and the Senate to study and debate the issue. However, when the proposal finally reached the Senate floor in 1886, it was defeated.

In 1890, the NWSA and the AWSA merged to form the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). The new organization's strategy was to lobby for women's voting rights on a state-by-state basis. Within six years, Colorado, Utah and Idaho adopted amendments to their state constitutions granting women the right to vote. In 1900, with Stanton and Anthony advancing in age, Carrie Chapman Catt stepped up to lead NAWSA.

Black Women in the Suffrage Movement

During debate over the 15th Amendment, white suffragist leaders like Stanton and Anthony had argued fiercely against Black men getting the vote before white women. Such a stance led to a break with their abolitionist allies, like Douglass, and ignored the distinct viewpoints and goals of Black women, led by prominent activists like Sojourner Truth and Frances E.W. Harper, fighting alongside them for the right to vote.

As the fight for voting rights continued, Black women in the suffrage movement continued to experience discrimination from white suffragists who wanted to distance their fight for voting rights from the question of race.

Pushed out of national suffrage organizations, Black suffragists founded their own groups, including the National Association of Colored Women Clubs (NACWC), founded in 1896 by a group of women including Harper, Mary Church Terrell and Ida B. Wells-Barnett. They fought hard for the passage of the 19th Amendment, seeing the women's right to vote as a crucial tool to winning legal protections for Black women (as well as Black men) against continued repression and violence.

State-level Successes for Voting Rights

The turn of the 20th century brought renewed momentum to the women's suffrage cause. Although the deaths of Stanton in 1902 and Anthony in 1906 appeared to be setbacks, the NASWA under the leadership of Catt achieved rolling successes for women's enfranchisement at state levels.

Between 1910 and 1918, the Alaska Territory, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota and Washington extended voting rights to women.

Also during this time, through the Equality League of Self-Supporting Women (later, the Women's Political Union), Stanton's daughter Harriot Stanton Blatch introduced parades, pickets and marches as means of calling attention to the cause. These tactics succeeded in raising awareness and led to unrest in Washington, D.C.

Did you know? Wyoming, the first state to grant voting rights to women, was also the first state to elect a female governor. Nellie Tayloe Ross (1876-1977) was elected governor of the Equality State-Wyoming's official nickname-in 1924. And from 1933 to 1953, she served as the first woman director of the U.S. Mint.

Protest and Progress

On the eve of the inauguration of President Woodrow Wilson in 1913, protesters thronged a massive suffrage parade in the nation's capital, and hundreds of women were injured. That same year, Alice Paul founded the Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage, which later became the National Woman's Party.

The organization staged numerous demonstrations and regularly picketed the White House, among other militant tactics. As a result of these actions, some group members were arrested and served jail time.

In 1918, President Wilson switched his stand on women's voting rights from objection to support through the influence of Catt, who had a less-combative style than Paul. Wilson also tied the proposed suffrage amendment to America's involvement in World War I and the increased role women had played in the war efforts.

When the amendment came up for vote, Wilson addressed the Senate in favor of suffrage. As reported in The New York Times on October 1, 1918, Wilson said, "I regard the extension of suffrage to women as vitally essential to the successful prosecution of the great war of humanity in which we are engaged."

However, despite Wilson's newfound support, the amendment proposal failed in the Senate by two votes. Another year passed before Congress took up the measure again.

The Final Struggle For Passage

On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann, a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304 to 89-a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority.

Two weeks later, on June 4, 1919, the U.S. Senate passed the 19th Amendment by two votes over its two-thirds required majority, 56-25. The amendment was then sent to the states for ratification.

Within six days of the ratification cycle, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin each ratified the amendment. Kansas, New York and Ohio followed on June 16, 1919. By March of the following year, a total of 35 states had approved the amendment, just shy of the three-fourths required for ratification.

Southern states were adamantly opposed to the amendment, however, and seven of them-Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia-had already rejected it before Tennessee's vote on August 18, 1920. It was up to Tennessee to tip the scale for woman suffrage.

The outlook appeared bleak, given the outcomes in other Southern states and given the position of Tennessee's state legislators in their 48-48 tie. The state's decision came down to 23-year-old Representative Harry T. Burn, a Republican from McMinn County, to cast the deciding vote.

Although Burn opposed the amendment, his mother convinced him to approve it. Mrs. Burn reportedly wrote to her son: "Don't forget to be a good boy and help Mrs. Catt put the 'rat' in ratification."

With Burn's vote, the 19th Amendment was fully ratified.

When Did Women Get the Right to Vote?

On August 26, 1920, the 19th Amendment was certified by U.S. Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby, and women finally achieved the long-sought right to vote throughout the United States.

On November 2 of that same year, more than 8 million women across the U.S. voted in elections for the first time.

It took over 60 years for the remaining 12 states to ratify the 19th Amendment. Mississippi was the last to do so, on March 22, 1984.

What Is the 19 Amendment?

The 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote, and reads:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
19th Amendment - Definition, Passage & Summary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The passage of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920 guaranteed women the right to vote. Learn how suffragists fought for the cause and hear a summary of amendment in this brief video.

# data[].attributes.body
granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. The right to vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, (43 Stat. 253, enacted June 2, 1924) was an Act of the United States Congress that granted US citizenship to the indigenous peoples of the United States. While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines a citizen as any persons born in the United States and subject to its laws and jurisdiction, the amendment had previously been interpreted by the courts not to apply to Native peoples.

The act was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York, and signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924. It was enacted partially in recognition of the thousands of Native Americans who served in the armed forces during the First World War.

The text of the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act reads as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.

Approved, June 2, 1924. June 2, 1924. [H. R. 6355.] [Public, No. 175.]

SIXTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. CHS. 233. 1924.

See House Report No. 222, Certificates of Citizenship to Indians, 68th Congress, 1st Session, Feb. 22, 1924.

The act has been codified in the United States Code at Title 8, Sec. 1401(b).

US Constitution

Under Article One of the United States Constitution, "Indians not taxed" were not counted in the population of a state for purposes of apportionment. Indigenous tribes were largely considered to be separate nations, with citizenship and treaty rights, so their people were not considered to be citizens of the United States.

The earliest recorded date of Native people becoming US citizens was in 1831, when the Mississippi Choctaw became citizens after the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek of 1830 was ratified. Under article XIV of that treaty, any Choctaw who elected not to move to Native American Territory could become an American citizen when he registered, and if he stayed on designated lands for five years after treaty ratification.

The US Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) said that Native people could become citizens, though their acquisition of citizenship was by way of naturalization (ie., not by birth within US territory):

They [the Indian tribes] may without doubt, like the subjects of any foreign government, be naturalized by the authority of Congress and become citizens of a state and of the United States, and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people.

After the American Civil War, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (ratified in 1870, after the 14th Amendment came into effect) repeated the exclusion, declaring:

all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.

Fourteenth Amendment

In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment declared all persons "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were citizens. However, the "jurisdiction" requirement was interpreted to exclude most Native Americans, and in 1870, the Senate Judiciary Committee further clarified the matter: "the 14th amendment to the Constitution has no effect whatever upon the status of the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States". About 8% of the Native population at the time qualified for U.S. citizenship because they were "taxed". Others obtained citizenship by serving in the military, marrying whites, or accepting land allotments such as those granted under the Dawes Act.

The exclusion of Native people from U.S. citizenship was further established by Elk v. Wilkins (1884), when the Supreme Court held that a Native person born a citizen of a recognized tribal nation was not born an American citizen and did not become one simply by voluntarily leaving his tribe and settling among whites. The syllabus of the decision explained that a Native person "who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution".

Indian Citizenship Act

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 declared:

all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States.

This grant of citizenship applied to about 125,000 of the 300,000 indigenous people in the United States. To put the numbers in perspective, the U.S. population at that time was less than 125 million. The indigenous people who were not included in citizenship numbers had already become citizens by other means, such as by entering the armed forces, giving up tribal affiliations, and assimilating into mainstream American life. Citizenship was granted in a piecemeal fashion before the Act, which was the first more inclusive method of granting Native American citizenship.

Even Native Americans who were granted citizenship rights under the 1924 Act may not have had full citizenship and suffrage rights until 1948. The right to vote, however, was governed by state law. According to a survey by the Department of Interior, seven states still refused to grant Indians voting rights in 1938. Discrepancies between federal and state control provided loopholes in the Act's enforcement. States justified discrimination based on state statutes and constitutions. Three main arguments for Indian voting exclusion were Indian exemption from real estate taxes, maintenance of tribal affiliation and the notion that Indians were under guardianship, or lived on lands controlled by federal trusteeship. By 1947, all states with large Indian populations, except Arizona and New Mexico, had extended voting rights to Native Americans who qualified under the 1924 Act. Finally, in 1948, the states withdrew their prohibition on Indian voting because of a judicial decision. Nevertheless, some states had still barred Native Americans from voting until 1957.

Under the 1924 Act, indigenous people did not have to apply for citizenship, nor did they have to give up their tribal citizenship to become US citizens. Most tribes had communal property, and to have a right to the land, individual Indian people needed to belong to the tribe. Thus, dual citizenship was allowed. Earlier views on granting Indian citizenship had suggested allocating land to individuals. Of such efforts, the Dawes Act was the most prominent. That Act allocated once-tribally-owned land to individual tribal members, and because they were landowners and eventually would pay taxes on the land and become "proficient members of society", they could be granted citizenship. This idea was presented by a group of white American citizens, called "Friends of the Indian", who lobbied for the assimilation of indigenous people into American society. They specifically hoped to do that by elevating indigenous people to the status of US citizens. Though the Dawes Act allocated land, the notion that this should be directly tied to citizenship was abandoned in the early 20th century in favor of a more direct path to American citizenship.

Although some white citizen groups were supportive of Indian citizenship, Indians themselves were divided on the debate. Those who supported it considered the Act a way to secure a long-standing political identity. Those who rejected it were concerned about tribal sovereignty and citizenship. Many leaders in the Native American community at the time, like Charles Santee, a Santee Sioux, were interested in Native American integration into the larger society but adamant about preserving the Native American identity. Many were also reluctant to trust the government that had taken their land and discriminated so violently against them.

One group who opposed the Bill was the Onondaga Nation. They believed acceptance of this act was "treason" because the United States Senate was forcing citizenship on all Indians without their consent. According to the Iroquois, the Bill disregarded previous treaties between the Indian Tribes and the United States, specifically the 1784 Treaty of Fort Stanwix, the 1789 Treaty of Fort Harmor, and the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua in which the Iroquois were recognized as "separate and sovereign". The removal of the word "full" from " full citizenship" in the text of the original bill was used as a reason why some Native Americans were not granted the immediate right to vote with the bill.

On May 19, 1924, Snyder said on the House floor, "The New York Indians are very much opposed to this, but I am perfectly willing to take the responsibility if the committee sees fit to agree to this." After passage of the Bill, Snyder became the representative of some of these Indians.

On December 30, 1924, the Chiefs of the Onondaga sent a letter to President Calvin Coolidge:

Therefore, be it resolved, that we, the Indians of the Onondaga Tribe of the Six Nations, duly depose and sternly protest the principal and object of the aforesaid Snyder Bill, ... Wherefore, we the undersigned counselling (sic) Chiefs of the Onondaga Nation, recommend the abandonment and repeal of the Snyder Bill.

With little lobbying effort from Native Americans themselves, two primarily white groups shaped the law: Progressive senators and activists, like the "Friends of the Indians". Progressive senators on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee were for the Act because they thought it would reduce corruption and inefficiency in the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Such institutions would no longer be in control of citizenship regulations if citizenship were automatically granted to all Indigenous people. They also hoped to empower Indians through citizenship.

Other groups for Native American citizenship supported it because of the "guardianship" status they felt the US government should take to protect indigenous people. They worried Indians were being taken advantage of by non-indigenous Americans for their land. They advocated that the government had an obligation to supervise and protect Native citizens. The Indian Rights Association, a key group in the development of this legislation, advocated that federal guardianship was a necessary component of citizenship. They pushed for the clause "tribal rights and property" in the Indian Citizenship Act to preserve Indian identity but gain citizenship rights and protection.

One advocate for American Indians during the early 20th century, Joseph K. Dixon, who had previously advocated for segregated Indian units during World War I in an effort to prevent their assimilation, wrote (referring to soldiers who served in World War I):

The Indian, though a man without a country, the Indian who has suffered a thousand wrongs considered the white man's burden and from mountains, plains and divides, the Indian threw himself into the struggle to help throttle the unthinkable tyranny of the Hun. The Indian helped to free Belgium, helped to free all the small nations, helped to give victory to the Stars and Stripes. The Indian went to France to help avenge the ravages of autocracy. Now, shall we not redeem ourselves by redeeming all the tribes?

Nipo T. Strongheart, a performer-lecturer on Native American topics at Lyceum and Chautauqua and similar activities across the United States from 1917 thru the 1920s, gathered signatures on petitions supporting Indian enfranchisement into the tens of thousands. Some of his trips into Pennsylvania were in support of Melville Clyde Kelly, a supporter of the bill in Congress, who had a district there. The petitions and other advocacy work helped pass the Bill, but he was ultimately disillusioned with the results.

1. ^ NCC Staff (June 2, 2015). "On this day in 1924: All Indians made United States citizens". National Constitution Center.

2. McCool, Daniel, Susan M. Olson, and Jennifer L. Robinson. ^ Native Vote, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

3. ^ Peterson, Helen L. (May 1957). "American Indian Political Participation". American Academy of Political and Social Science. 311 (1): 116-121. doi:10.1177/000271625731100113. S2CID 144617127.

4. ^ Bruyneel, Kevin (2004). "Challenging American Boundaries: Indigenous People and the 'Gift' of U.S. Citizenship". Studies in American Political Development. 18 (1): 30-43. doi:10.1017/S0898588X04000021. S2CID 145698348.

5. Paul Rosier, ^ Serving their country: American Indian politics and patriotism in the twentieth century, 46.

6. ^ Lori Lynn Muntz (May 2006). Representing Indians: The Melodrama of Native Citizenship in United States Popular Culture of the 1920s (Thesis). Department of English, University of Iowa. p. 265. ISBN 978-0-542-79588-6. UMI3225654.

7. ^ Prengaman, Kate (August 10, 2014). "Pride for his people - New displays at Toppenish museum celebrate life and influence of Nipo Strongheart, a Yakama with a passion for Indian rights". Yakima Herald-Republic. Yakima Washington.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, (43 Stat. 253, enacted June 2, 1924) was an Act of the United States Congress that granted US citizenship to the indigenous peoples of the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed in 1943 with the passage of the Magnuson Act, which permitted a quota of 105 Chinese immigrants annually.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NOTE TO READERS
"Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations" has been retired and is no longer maintained. For more information, please see the full notice.

In 1943, Congress passed a measure to repeal the discriminatory exclusion laws against Chinese immigrants and to establish an immigration quota for China of around 105 visas per year. As such, the Chinese were both the first to be excluded in the beginning of the era of immigration restriction and the first Asians to gain entry to the United States in the era of liberalization. The repeal of this act was a decision almost wholly grounded in the exigencies of World War II, as Japanese propaganda made repeated reference to Chinese exclusion from the United States in order to weaken the ties between the United States and its ally, the Republic of China. The fact that in addition to general measures preventing Asian immigration, the Chinese were subject to their own, unique prohibition had long been a source of contention in Sino‑American relations. There was little opposition to the repeal, because the United States already had in place a number of measures to ensure that, even without the Chinese Exclusion Laws explicitly forbidding Chinese immigration, Chinese still could not enter. The Immigration Act of 1924 stated that aliens ineligible for U.S. citizenship were not permitted to enter the United States, and this included the Chinese.

The Repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act

More controversial than repeal was the proposal to go one step further and place the Chinese on a quota basis for future entry to the United States. By finally applying the formulas created in the 1924 Immigration Act, the total annual quota for Chinese immigrants to the United States (calculated as a percentage of the total population of people of Chinese origin living in the United States in 1920) would be around 105. In light of the overall immigration to the United States, at first glance the new quota seemed insignificant. Yet, those concerned about an onslaught of Chinese (or Asian) immigration and its potential impact on American society and racial composition believed that even this small quota represented an opening wedge through which potentially thousands of Chinese could enter the United States. Because migration within the Western Hemisphere was not regulated by the quota system, it seemed possible that Chinese residents in Central and South America would re-migrate to the United States. Moreover, if the Chinese of Hong Kong were to apply under the vast, largely unused British quota, thousands could enter each year on top of the number of available Chinese visas.

Fears about the economic, social, and racial effect of a "floodtide" of Chinese immigrants led to a compromise bill-fears that mirrored the xenophobic arguments that had led to Chinese Exclusion in the first place, some sixty years previously. Under this bill, there would be a quota on Chinese immigration, but, unlike European quotas based on country of citizenship, the Chinese quota would be based on ethnicity. Chinese immigrating to the United States from anywhere in the world would be counted against the Chinese quota, even if they had never been to China or had never held Chinese nationality. Creating this special, ethnic quota for the Chinese was a way for the United States to combat Japanese propaganda by proclaiming that Chinese were welcome, but at the same time, to ensure that only a limited number of Chinese actually entered the country.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt threw the weight of his office behind the compromise measure, connecting the importance of the measure to American wartime goals. In a letter to Congress, Roosevelt wrote that passing the bill was vital to correcting the "historic mistake" of Chinese exclusion, and he emphasized that the legislation was "important in the cause of winning the war and of establishing a secure peace."

The repeal of Chinese exclusion paved the way for measures in 1946 to admit Filipino and Asian-Indian immigrants. The exclusion of both of these groups had long damaged U.S. relations with the Philippines and India. Eventually, Asian exclusion ended with the 1952 Immigration Act, although that Act followed the pattern of the Chinese quota and assigned racial, not national, quotas to all Asian immigrants. This system did not end until Congress did away with the National Origins quota system altogether in the Immigration Act of 1965.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Milestones: 1937-1945 - Office of the Historian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NOTE TO READERS "Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations" has been retired and is no longer maintained. For more information, please see the full notice. In 1943, Congress passed a measure to repeal the discriminatory exclusion laws against Chinese immigrants and to establish an immigration quota for China of around 105 visas per year.

# data[].attributes.body
The Twenty-third Amendment (Amendment XXIII) to the United States Constitution extends the right to participate in presidential elections to the District of Columbia.

# data[].attributes.body
United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the electoral districts of state legislative chambers must be roughly equal in population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Reynolds v. Sims

Full case name
Reynolds, Judge, et al. v. Sims, et al.

Citations

377 U.S. 533 (more)

Argument
Oral argument

Prior

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

State senate districts must have roughly equal populations based on the principle of "one person, one vote".

Chief Justice

Earl Warren

Associate Justices

Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Arthur Goldberg

Majority

Warren, joined by Black, Douglas, Brennan, White, Goldberg

Concurrence

Clark

Concurrence

Stewart

Dissent

Harlan

U.S. Const. amend. XIV ( Equal Protection Clause)

This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings

Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946) (in part)

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the electoral districts of state legislative chambers must be roughly equal in population. Along with Baker v. Carr (1962) and Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), it was part of a series of Warren Court cases that applied the principle of " one person, one vote" to U.S. legislative bodies.

Prior to the case, numerous state legislative chambers had districts containing unequal populations; for example, in the Nevada Senate, the smallest district had 568 people, while the largest had approximately 127,000 people. Some states refused to engage in regular redistricting, while others enshrined unequal representation in state constitutions. The case of Reynolds v. Sims arose after voters in Birmingham, Alabama, challenged the apportionment of the Alabama Legislature; the Constitution of Alabama provided for one state senator per county regardless of population differences.

In a majority opinion joined by five other justices, Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to establish state legislative electoral districts roughly equal in population. Warren held that "legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan II argued that the Equal Protection Clause was not designed to apply to voting rights. The decision had a major impact on state legislatures, as many states had to change their system of representation.

Before the industrialization and urbanization of the United States, a State Senate was understood to represent rural counties, as a counterbalance to towns and cities. State and national legislatures had been reluctant to redistrict., because there existed general upper-class fear that if redistricting to meet population changes were carried out, voters in large, expanding or expanded urban areas would vote for confiscatory wealth redistribution that would severely inhibit the power of business interests who controlled state and city governments early in the century. Of the forty-eight states then in the Union, only seven twice redistricted even one chamber of their legislature following both the 1930 and the 1940 Censuses. Oregon did not redistrict between 1907 and 1960, Illinois not between 1910 and 1955, while Alabama and Tennessee had at the time of Reynolds not redistricted since 1901. In Connecticut, Vermont, Mississippi, and Delaware, apportionment was fixed by the states' constitutions, which, when written in the late eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, could not have imagined the possibility of rural depopulation as was to occur during the first half of the century. In New Hampshire the state constitutions, since January 1776, had always called for the state senate to be apportioned based on taxes paid, rather than on population.

Having already overturned its ruling that redistricting was a purely political question in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Court ruled to correct what it considered egregious examples of malapportionment; these were serious enough to undermine the premises underlying republican government. Before Reynolds, urban counties nationwide often had total representations similar to rural counties, and in Florida, there was a limit to three representatives even for the most populous counties.

Voters from Jefferson County, Alabama, home to the state's largest city of Birmingham, had challenged the apportionment of the Alabama Legislature. The Alabama Constitution provided that there be only one state senator per county. Ratio variances as great as 41 to 1 from one senatorial district to another existed in the Alabama Senate (i.e., the number of eligible voters voting for one senator was in one case 41 times the number of voters in another).

Among the more extreme pre- Reynolds disparities claimed by Morris K. Udall:

In the Connecticut General Assembly, one House district had 191 people.

In the New Hampshire General Court, one township with three people had a Representative in the lower house; this was the same representation given another district with a population of 3,244.

In the Utah State Legislature, the smallest district had 165 people, the largest 32,380.

In the Vermont General Assembly, the smallest district had 36 people, the largest 35,000.

Los Angeles County, California, then with six million people, had one member in the California State Senate, as did the 400 people of Alpine County.

In the Idaho Senate, the smallest district had 951 people; the largest, 93,400.

In the Nevada Senate, seventeen members represented as many as 127,000 or as few as 568 people.

The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise. [...] Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.

--Chief Justice Earl Warren on the right to vote as the foundation of democracy in Reynolds v. Sims (1964).

The eight justices who struck down state senate inequality based their decision on the principle of " one person, one vote." In his majority decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren said "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." In addition, the majority simply denied the argument that states were permitted to base their apportionment structures upon the Constitution itself, which requires two senators from each state despite substantially unequal populations among the states.

Justice Tom C. Clark wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Potter Stewart also issued a concurring opinion, in which he argued that while many of the schemes of representation before the court in the case were egregiously undemocratic and clearly violative of equal protection, it was not for the Court to provide any guideline beyond general reasonableness for apportionment of districts.

In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote that the majority had chosen to ignore the language, history, and original intent of the Equal Protection Clause, which did not extend to voting rights. The dissent strongly accused the Court of repeatedly amending the Constitution through its opinions, rather than waiting for the lawful amendment process: "the Court's action now bringing them (state legislative apportionments) within the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment amounts to nothing less than an exercise of the amending power by this Court." The Court soon extended "one person, one vote" to all U.S. congressional districts in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), but not to the Senate.

Since the ruling applied different representation rules to the states than was applicable to the federal government, Reynolds v. Sims set off a legislative firestorm across the country. Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois led a fight to pass a constitutional amendment allowing legislative districts based on land area, similar to the United States Senate. He warned that:

[T]he forces of our national life are not brought to bear on public questions solely in proportion to the weight of numbers. If they were, the 6 million citizens of the Chicago area would hold sway in the Illinois Legislature without consideration of the problems of their 4 million fellows who are scattered in 100 other counties. Under the Court's new decree, California could be dominated by Los Angeles and San Francisco; Michigan by Detroit.

Numerous states had to change their system of representation in the state legislature. For instance, South Carolina had elected one state senator from each county. It devised a reapportionment plan and passed an amendment providing for home rule to counties. However, allegations of State Senates being redundant arose, as all states affected retained their state senates, with state senators being elected from single-member districts, rather than abolishing the upper houses, as had been done in 1936 in Nebraska (and in the provinces of Canada), or switching to electing state senators by proportional representation from several large multi-member districts or from one statewide at-large district, as was done in Australia.

In a 2015 Magazine survey of over 50 law professors, both Erwin Chemerinsky (Dean, UC Berkeley School of Law) and Richard Pildes ( NYU School of Law) named Reynolds v. Sims the "best Supreme Court decision since 1960", with Chemerinsky noting that in his opinion, the decision made American government "far more democratic and representative."

1. ^ Smith, J. Douglas (2015). On Democracy's Doorstep: The Inside Story of How the Supreme Court Brought "One Person, One Vote" to the United States. Hill & Wang. pp. 4-18. ISBN 978-0-8090-7424-2.

2. ^ Rodden, Jonathan A. (March 25, 2011). The Long Shadow of the Industrial Revolution: Political Geography and the Representation of the Left (PDF). Stanford University.

3. ^ Baker, Gordon E. (1979). Rural Versus Urban Political Power: The Nature and Consequences of Unbalanced Representation. Praeger. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-313-21223-9.

4. ^ Shull, Charles W. (1941). "Reapportionment: A Chronic Problem". National Municipal Review. 30: 73-79.

5. ^ Harvey, Lashey G. (1952). "Reapportionments of State Legislatures: Legal Requirement". Law and Contemporary Problems. 17 (2): 364-376.

6. ^ "Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), at 555 and 561-562". Justia US Supreme Court Center. June 15, 1964.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reynolds v. Sims Full case name Reynolds, Judge, et al. v. Sims, et al. Citations 377 U.S. 533 (more ) Argument Oral argument Prior Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama State senate districts must have roughly equal populations based on the principle of "one person, one vote".

# data[].attributes.body
Voting Rights Act of 1965,the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.[7][8] It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections.[7] Designed to enforce the voting rights protected by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of federal civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country.[9] The National Archives and Records Administration stated: “The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the most significant statutory change in the relationship between the federal and state governments in the area of voting since the Reconstruction period following the Civil War”.[10]

# data[].attributes.body
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

1. The 26th Amendment: "Old Enough to Fight, Old Enough to Vote"

2. Presidential & Congressional Support for the 26th Amendment

3. Supreme Court Decision on the 26th Amendment

4. Passage, Ratification and Effects of the 26th Amendment

5. Text of the 26 Amendment

The 26 Amendment lowered the legal voting age in the United States from 21 to 18. The long debate over lowering the voting age began during World War II and intensified during the Vietnam War, when young men denied the right to vote were being conscripted to fight for their country. In the 1970 case Oregon v. Mitchell, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the right to regulate the minimum age in federal elections, but not at the state and local level. Amid increasing support for a Constitutional amendment, Congress passed the 26th Amendment in March 1971. The states promptly ratified it, and President Richard M. Nixon signed it into law that July.

The 26th Amendment: "Old Enough to Fight, Old Enough to Vote"

During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt lowered the minimum age for the military draft age to 18, at a time when the minimum voting age (as determined by the individual states) had historically been 21. "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote" became a common slogan for a youth voting rights movement, and in 1943 Georgia became the first state to lower its voting age in state and local elections from 21 to 18.

Did you know? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, young voters (age 18 to 24) were the only group to show a statistically significant increase in turnout in 2008, despite an overall increase of some 5 million voters.

Jennings Randolph, then a Democratic congressman from West Virginia, introduced federal legislation to lower the voting age in 1942; it was the first of 11 times that Randolph, who was later elected to the Senate, would introduce such a bill in Congress. The driving force behind Randolph's efforts was his faith in America's youth, who he said "possess a great social conscience, are perplexed by the injustices in the world and are anxious to rectify those ills."
READ MORE: How the Vietnam War Draft Spurred the Fight for Lowering the Legal Voting Age
Presidential & Congressional Support for the 26th Amendment

Dwight D. Eisenhower, who led the U.S. armed forces to victory in Europe in 1945, later became the first president to publicly voice his support for a constitutional amendment lowering the minimum voting age. In his 1954 State of the Union address, Eisenhower declared: "For years our citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 have, in time of peril, been summoned to fight for America. They should participate in the political process that produces this fateful summons."

In the late 1960s, with the United States embroiled in a long, costly war in Vietnam, youth voting rights activists held marches and demonstrations to draw lawmakers' attention to the hypocrisy of drafting young men who lacked the right to vote. In 1969, no fewer than 60 resolutions were introduced in Congress to lower the minimum voting age, but none resulted in any action. The following year, when Congress passed a bill extending and amending the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it contained a provision that lowered the voting age to 18 in federal, state and local elections. Though he signed the bill into law, President Richard M. Nixon issued a public statement declaring that he believed the provision to be unconstitutional. "Although I strongly favor the 18-year-old vote," Nixon continued, "I believe-along with most of the Nation's leading constitutional scholars-that Congress has no power to enact it by simple statute, but rather it requires a constitutional amendment."

Supreme Court Decision on the 26th Amendment

In the 1970 case Oregon v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with reviewing the constitutionality of the provision. Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority decision in the case, which held that Congress did not have the right to regulate the minimum age in State and local elections, but only in federal elections. The issue left the Court seriously divided: Four justices, not including Black, believed Congress did have the right in state and local elections, while four others (again, not including Black) believed that Congress lacked the right even for federal elections, and that under the Constitution only the states have the right to set voter qualifications.

Under this verdict, 18- to 20-year-olds would be eligible to vote for president and vice president, but not for state officials up for election at the same time. Dissatisfaction with this situation-as well as public reaction to the protests of large numbers of young men and women facing conscription, but deprived of the right to vote-built support among many states for a Constitutional amendment that would set a uniform national voting age of 18 in all elections.

Passage, Ratification and Effects of the 26th Amendment

On March 10, 1971, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously in favor of the proposed amendment. After an overwhelming House vote in favor on March 23, the 26th Amendment went to the states for ratification. In just over two months-the shortest period of time for any amendment in U.S. history-the necessary three-fourths of state legislatures (or 38 states) ratified the 26th Amendment. It officially went into effect on July 1, 1971, though President Nixon signed it into law on July 5, 1971. At a White House ceremony attended by 500 newly eligible voters, Nixon declared: "The reason I believe that your generation, the 11 million new voters, will do so much for America at home is that you will infuse into this nation some idealism, some courage, some stamina, some high moral purpose, that this country always needs."

Though newly minted young voters were expected to choose Democratic challenger George McGovern, an opponent of the Vietnam War, Nixon was reelected by an overwhelming margin-winning 49 states-in 1972. Over the next decades, the legacy of the 26th Amendment was a mixed one: After a 55.4 percent turnout in 1972, youth turnout steadily declined, reaching 36 percent in the 1988 presidential election. Though the 1992 election of Bill Clinton saw a slight rebound, voting rates of 18- to 24-year-olds remained well behind the turnout of older voters, and many lamented that America's young people were squandering their opportunities to enact change. The 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama saw a voter turnout of some 49 percent of 18- to 24 year-olds, the second highest in history.

Text of the 26 Amendment
Amendment XXVI The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Sources

The 26 Amendment. House.gov.
26 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Archives.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 26th Amendment: "Old Enough to Fight, Old Enough to Vote" Presidential & Congressional Support for the 26th Amendment Supreme Court Decision on the 26th Amendment Passage, Ratification and Effects of the 26th Amendment Text of the 26 Amendment The 26 Amendment lowered the legal voting age in the United States from 21 to 18.

# data[].attributes.body
Voting Rights Act- Amendments of 1975

Congress expanded the original ban on "tests or devices" to apply nationwide in 1970, and in 1975, Congress made the ban permanent. Separately, in 1975 Congress expanded the Act's scope to protect language minorities from voting discrimination.

# data[].attributes.body
United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner in order to create a “majority-minority” Black district.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Shaw v. Reno

Full case name
Ruth O. Shaw, et al., Appellants v. Janet Reno, Attorney General et al.

Citations

509 U.S. 630 (more)

Prior

Shaw v. Barr, 808 F. Supp. 461 ( E.D.N.C. 1992)

Subsequent

On remand, Shaw v. Hunt, 861 F. Supp. 408 (E.D.N.C. 1994); reversed, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999); Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001).

Redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause while bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

Chief Justice

William Rehnquist

Associate Justices

Harry Blackmun · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas

Majority

O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas

Dissent

White, joined by Blackmun, Stevens

Dissent

Blackmun

Dissent

Stevens

Dissent

Souter

Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner in order to create a "majority-minority" Black district. From there, Ruth O. Shaw sued this proposed plan with the argument that this 12th district was unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment under the clause of equal protection. In contrast, Reno, a North Carolina attorney, argued that the district would allow for minority groups to have a voice in elections. In the decision, the court ruled in a 5-4 majority that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause and on the basis that it violated the fourteenth Amendment because it was drawn solely based on race.

Shaw v Reno was an influential case and received backlash. Some southern states filed against majority-Black districts. This decision played a role in deciding many future cases, including and Miller v. Johnson. However, the phrasing of irregularly drawn districts has left room for much interpretation, letting judges use their opinions rather than relying on Shaw.

Gerrymandering

To contextualize the Shaw supreme court case, gerrymandering is the redrawing of electoral districts to help give a political advantage. Through this process, political parties can draw the boundaries of districts to favor their party's candidate as they allow for extra seats to be won. The census marks when states can redraw their congressional district lines and in accordance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, districts must be redrawn equally populated. With new technology and tactics of packing and cracking, gerrymandering has become easier through the years but within gerrymandering, limitations exist. Gerrymandering has come before the Supreme Court in multiple cases but in Shaw, racial gerrymandering refers to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 of this act opposes using discriminatory voting practices in the election process and that in itself prohibits gerrymandering based on race.

Racial Background

In 1870, following the Civil war and the abolishment of slavery, the 15th amendment was passed, giving all United States citizens the right to vote regardless of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude. This amendment ensured the voting rights of African Americans. However, after its enactment, many southern states began implementing new ways to bar African Americans from voting. Some of these methods included poll taxes, which many could not afford, literacy tests, that many could not pass, and grandfather clauses, which stated that one can only vote if their grandfather voted. This changed with the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed these racially discriminatory practices and required government supervision for states that had less than 50 percent of non-White citizens registered to vote. If any state wanted to change any voting rules, they had to receive pre-clearance to ensure no new rule was racist. The Voting Rights Act prohibited many of the tactics that hindered Black voters from getting their voices heard. This was due to the establishment of the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship and equal rights to all African-Americans. The law of redistricting had to comply with this act in order for the minority group to have impact in the U.S. government. In addition, any affected American citizen that felt that they are being affected by the Voting Rights Act can file a lawsuit stating that it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act which led rise to the case. However, racial gerrymandering continued past 1965 because it is extremely difficult to prove if districts were drawn on the basis of racial discrimination. This was apparent in the Thornburgh V. Gingles case of 1986 in which Black citizens of North Carolina argued that all white-majority districts were drawn up so a Black representative wouldn't get elected. In this unanimous decision, it was decided that districts did indeed dilute Black votes and therefore did violate the Voting Rights Act.

Janet Reno(Appellant) was the 78th Attorney General. She was the first female US Attorney General, selected by President Clinton.

Ruth O. Shaw(Appellee) was a white democratic resident of the 12th district in North Carolina.

After the 1990 census, the North Carolina General Assembly was entitled to a 12th seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and redrew its congressional districts to account for the changes in population. This district would be North Carolina's second "majority-minority" district of majority Black voters. The North Carolina General Assembly submitted the plan to the U.S. Attorney General for preclearance under the Voting Rights Act, but it was rejected by the US Department of Justice which was led by Attorney General Janet Reno. Attorney General Janet Reno instructed the North Carolina state assembly to add another majority-minority district in order to comply with the recent amendments to the Voting Rights Act. In 1982, the Voting Rights Act was amended to target the decrease in a specific minority's ability to ever gain a voting majority. The state revised its map and submitted a new plan, this one with two majority-minority districts. The proposed 12th district was 160 miles (260 km) long, winding through the state to connect various areas having in common only a large Black population and cut through five counties which split into three voting districts. The new district was described in Supreme Court's opinion as "snake-like."

After the General Assembly passed legislation creating the second district, a group of White voters in North Carolina, led by Ruth O. Shaw, sued on the grounds that the district was an unconstitutional gerrymander. Shaw's group claimed that drawing districts based on race violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 lead to the rise of the Shaw v. Reno court case which allowed for more representation of the Black (minority) representation in the state of North Carolina. However, five White residents of North Carolina, opposed against the redrawing because of the oddly shaped district in which they also stated it violated their Equal Protection Rights. This case was unlike others since the Voting Right Act, now didn't hinder the redistricting and impediment of the minority groups. Now the claim was whether making a district based on race was racially adequate and fair for everyone.

An essential case, repeatedly referred to through out the Shaw v. Reno case was the United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg V. Carey case. A federal District Court dismissed a lawsuit by North Carolina voters on the grounds that they had no claim for relief under a standard set by the previous Supreme Court case, United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh v. Carey. With a 7-1 decision the court ruled in favor of Carey, the respondent. The United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg claimed that the plan violated their constitutional rights because the districts had been assigned solely on a racial basis. The court found that the reapportionment plan was valid under the Constitution as the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth Amendment do not prohibit the use of racial factors in districting and apportionment.

Shaw along with other five North Carolina residents filed an action against the state, declaring that the state had created an unconstitutional racial gerrymandering violating the Fourteenth Amendment. It was also argued that the racial gerrymandering hindered the voters from having a blind process of voting. This was a previous problem that discriminated against the minority voters however, the White residents thought it was hindering their voices racially. Then, the residents argued that the state had gone far this time by redrawing the district lines and creating a second district that was dominated by the minorities. Another argument that was made was the "snake-like" structure of the district and how it does not follow the reapportionment guidelines, which led to filling a lawsuit against both the state and federal government for political gerrymandering.

Reno, an attorney from North Carolina, argued that the creation of the second district was necessary in order to follow the request of the General Assembly that required them to abide by the Voting Right Act of 1965, which would increase the representation of the minority groups and allow them to have more of a voice when voting. This was to designed to prevent any discrimination by race and North Carolina thought this plan was completely aligned with the request of the General Assembly guidelines. It included that the Supreme Court of the United States and the federal government that allowed states to find any possible way to comply to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, even if it meant having a strangely structured district like this one which Reno argued against.

In a 5-4 decision the courts ruled in favor of Shaw (the petitioner), finding that it was, in fact, unlawful to gerrymander on the basis of race. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinionin which she explains the court's ruling. In it, she writes that the court found that the shape of North Carolina's 12th district was so "bizarre" that the only reasonable explanation was that it had been drawn on the basis of race. The courts also noted that based on the Voting Rights Act, race can be taken into account when redistricting plans are made, but it cannot be the sole factor when drawing a new district because that would violate the fourteenth amendment. Therefore, such redistricting was held unconstitutional since it found intention to segregate voters by race and this segregation cannot be justified under a standard of strict scrutiny.

"Racial gerrymandering even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions; it threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters-a goal that the Fourteen and Fifteenth Amendments embody, and to which the Nation continues to aspire." -Shaw, 509 U.S. at 657

Additionally, it was noted that allowing the 12th district to be drawn in that manner would be setting a dangerous precedent in our Democratic system in which we are attempting to reach equality.

"Racial classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society. They reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of our history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin" -Shaw, 509 U.S. at 657

The dissenting opinion by Justice White held that Shaw failed to present cognizable harm or that for Shaw to bring this case there had to have been harm done to them one way or another and that this failed to be presented in court. Additionally, he noted the voting interests of those who brought the case had not been violated. He also stated that drawing districts on the basis of race could prove to be beneficial for minority communities.

The dissenting opinions from Justice Blackmun and Stevens also brought many of the same points as White and they also added that the purpose of the equal protection clause was only to protect those who have been historically discriminated against. Therefore, it should not apply to the White voters who brought this case.

Justice Souter noted the arbitrary nature of the struct scrutiny applied in this case. He detailed that the 12th district was ultimately drawn to benefit a minority group hence making the strict scrutiny applied to feel unreasonable.

"The difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gerrymanders has nothing to do with whether they are based on assumptions about the groups they affect, but whether their purpose is to enhance the power of the group in control of the districting process at the expense of any minority group, and thereby to strengthen the unequal distribution of electoral power." - Shaw, 509 U.S. at 678

While Shaw intended to construct limitations on using race to gerrymander districts, it fell short to live up to those expectations. The Shaw v. Reno decision led to different interpretations as questions were left unanswered. The result of Shaw led to a mixed reaction and, soon after, lawsuits were filed against majority-Black districts in some southern states such as Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana. Shaw also does not add or address the criteria needed for creating districts. "Highly irregular" districts are called into question but Shaw does not unpack what that means. The impact of Shaw goes far beyond the case decision and has since paved the wave for future Supreme Court cases. Supreme Court cases, which build on Shaw, focus on majority-minority districts and try to answer if race can be used to redistrict districts. Grofman adds that he does not believe Shaw to be a game-changer, but he does emphasize that while their consequences might not be as far-reaching, its succeeding cases are. While Shaw failed to set clear criteria for gerrymandering, Shaw impacted the future of voting rights.The significance of the Shaw v. Reno decision is heavily debated but it is known that it had a lasting impact on how the Voting Rights Act was going to be enforced and the structure of the U.S. political system.

In the aftermath of the Shaw v. Reno decision, the Supreme Court reexamined the topic of racial gerrymandering in the other court cases. In , the state of Texas planned to add additional congressional districts after the 1990 census. These redistricting measures were found to be unconstitutional and in the decision of this case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor referred back to her opinion from Shaw v. Reno. She noted that under the standard of "strict scrutiny", the districts were irregularly shaped and used race as a deciding factor. The redistricting plans of this case were overturned and the overall decision aligned with that of the Shaw case. Likewise, Miller v. Johnson is another case that was influenced by Shaw. In Miller v. Johnson, Georgia's racial gerrymandering was questioned to violate the Equal Protection Clause, as it aimed to create a majority-Black district. Justices looked to Shaw v. Reno for guidance as they ruled on the legality of racial gerrymandering. Using the Shaw v. Reno decision, the justices decided that using racial reasons for redistricting is unconstitutional. Since Georgia's General Assembly used "race for its own sake and not other districting principles," their actions were rendered unconstitutional.

There have been controversies and misinterpretations associated with Shaw v. Reno. Shaw fails to give a criteria for an irregular drawing. It is, therefore, unclear how to prove when a shape is bizarre enough to constitute a clear racial motive, making it hard for courts to decide on rulings. As a result, it is possible for courts to interpret Shaw differently. For example, a Georgia court ruled that a district of "average appearance" was invalidated, but North Carolina's snake-like shaped district which could be described as irregular was upheld. There are many discrepancies that each judge must take into account when using Shaw v. Reno as a precedent. In addition to being unclear, Shaw has the ability to disenfranchise minorities. In Reynold v. Sims, the phrase "people, not trees of pastures, vote" can be applied to Shaw, as people, not highways, vote. Despite this, voter rights are being controlled by district shapes in the redistricting process. Shaw v. Reno places a lot of importance on the actual lines drawn, rather than who they contain. This outlook has the potential to disenfranchise minorities, as courts may place more importance on the shape of the district, rather than the underrepresented people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Shaw v. Reno Full case name Ruth O. Shaw, et al., Appellants v. Janet Reno, Attorney General et al. Citations 509 U.S. 630 (more ) Prior Shaw v. Barr, 808 F. Supp. 461 ( E.D.N.C. 1992) Subsequent On remand, Shaw v. Hunt, 861 F. Supp. 408 (E.D.N.C. 1994); reversed, 517 U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
While the NVRA applies to elections for federal office, States have extended its procedures to all elections. SECTION 5 – MOTOR VEHICLE AGENCIES.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These questions and answers are designed to provide information and guidance to state and local officials as well as the general public concerning the provisions of the NVRA and its interaction with the other statutes enforced by the Department. The Department welcomes comments concerning this document.

Questions and Answers
OVERVIEW

1. What is the NVRA?
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (also known as the "NVRA" or "motor voter law") sets forth certain voter registration requirements with respect to elections for federal office. Section 5 of the NVRA requires that States offer voter registration opportunities at State motor vehicle agencies. Section 6 of the NVRA requires that States offer voter registration opportunities by mail-in application. Section 7 of the NVRA requires that States offer voter registration opportunities at certain State and local offices, including public assistance and disability offices. Section 8 of the NVRA contains requirements with respect to the administration of voter registration by States and requires States to implement procedures to maintain accurate and current voter registration lists.

2. What States are covered by the NVRA's requirements?
The requirements of the NVRA apply to 44 States and the District of Columbia. Six States (Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming are exempt from the NVRA because, on and after August 1, 1994, they either had no voter-registration requirements or had election-day voter registration at polling places with respect to elections for federal office. Likewise, the territories are not covered by the NVRA (Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa). While the NVRA applies to elections for federal office, States have extended its procedures to all elections.
SECTION 5 - MOTOR VEHICLE AGENCIES

3. What voter registration opportunity is required by Section 5 of the NVRA?
Each State motor vehicle driver's license application (including any renewal application) submitted to a State motor vehicle authority must serve as a simultaneous voter registration application unless the applicant fails to sign the voter registration application. This application for voter registration must be considered as updating any previous voter registration by the applicant.

In addition, any change of address form submitted for State driver's license purposes must also serve as notification of change of address for voter registration purposes unless the registrant states on the form that the change of address is not for voter registration purposes. This means that all changes of address submitted to State motor vehicle offices must be forwarded to election authorities unless the registrant affirmatively requests otherwise by opting out on the form.

4. Do the voter registration requirements of Section 5 of the NVRA apply to all license transactions with driver's license offices?
Yes. The NVRA defines the term 'motor vehicle driver's license" to include "any personal identification document issued by a State motor vehicle authority." Hence, the NVRA voter registration opportunity applies to applications, renewals, and change of address transactions regarding any personal identification document issued by a State motor vehicle authority.

Moreover, to the extent that the State provides for remote applications for driver's licenses, driver's license renewals, or driver's license changes of address, via mail, telephone, or internet or other means, then provision must be made to include the required voter registration opportunity as well.

5. What is a motor vehicle agency required to do with completed voter registration applications accepted at its offices?
Completed voter registration applications accepted at a motor vehicle agency must be transmitted to the appropriate State election official no later than ten days after acceptance. However, if an application is accepted at a motor vehicle agency within five days of a voter registration deadline for an election, the application must be transmitted to election officials no later than five days after acceptance. The agency providing voter-registration services may not require a registrant to mail in the form himself or herself or discourage him or her in any manner from submitting the form to the agency. Similarly, if it is agency practice to make sure that agency forms are completed and signed when submitted by an applicant, the same practice should apply to a voter registration application submitted by that applicant.
SECTION 6 - MAIL REGISTRATION

6. What are the requirements for voter registration by mail provided by Section 6 of the NVRA?
Section 6 of the NVRA requires each State to accept and use the federal mail voter registration application form developed by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. This form is available on the EAC's web site at http://www.eac.gov/program-areas/national-voter-registration-form. In addition to containing a voter-registration application, this EAC application booklet describes certain state-specific requirements. The national form and booklet have been developed by the EAC in consultation with the States.

7. Can a State develop its own mail voter registration application?
Yes. Section 6 of the NVRA also provides that, in addition to accepting and using the federal mail application, a State may develop and use its own mail voter registration form, if it meets all of the same criteria the NVRA requires for the EAC's national mail voter registration application.

8. Does the NVRA require States to make mail voter registration applications available?
Yes. The chief election official of each State must make mail voter registration applications available for distribution through governmental and private entities, with particular emphasis on making them available for organized voter registration programs. Most states satisfy these requirements by, among other things, making applications available at local registrar offices, driver license offices, public assistance offices and disability-service offices, to groups doing voter registration drives, and through the internet on the website of the chief election official. These forms are also available on the website of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

9. What requirements does federal law place on first-time voters who register to vote by mail?
If a person registers to vote by mail and has not previously voted in a federal election in a State, Section 303(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 established new requirements.

Where a person registers to vote by mail and has not previously voted in a federal election in a State, if the voter does not qualify for one of the exemptions in Section 303(b)(3) of HAVA (described below), then he or she must submit one of the forms of identification required by Section 303(b)(2)(A) of HAVA the first time that he or she votes in a federal election. These forms of identification are: 1) a current and valid photo identification; or 2) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter. If the voter does not present the required identification, Section 303(b)(2)(B) of HAVA provides that he or she may nonetheless cast a provisional ballot.

Sections 303(b)(3)(A)-(C) of HAVA create certain exemptions from these identification requirements. An applicant who provides the specified identification documents with his or her registration application (or otherwise provides such documentation to election officials before Election Day), is exempt from the requirement to show identification the first time he or she votes in a federal election. Likewise, an applicant who provides his or her driver's license number or last four digits of his or her social security number, and the State is able to match this information against an existing State record, is exempt from the requirement to show identification the first time he or she votes in a federal election. In addition, persons entitled to vote by absentee ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, or entitled to vote other than in person under the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act or other federal law, are exempt from HAVA's identification requirements.
SECTION 7 - VOTER REGISTRATION AGENCIES

10. Under Section 7 of the NVRA, which offices must offer voter-registration services?
Any office in a covered State that provides either public assistance or state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities must offer voter-registration services. Armed Forces recruitment offices must also provide voter registration services. In addition, a State must designate other offices in the State as voter-registration agencies. (See Question 15 below for a description of these other offices).

11. What is an office that provides public assistance under Section 7?
"Public assistance" offices that must offer voter-registration services under Section 7 of the NVRA include each agency and office in a State that administers or provides services or assistance under any public assistance programs. This includes any of the following federal public assistance programs: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food-Stamp Program), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program (formerly the Aid to Families with Dependent Children or AFDC program), the Medicaid program, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). This also includes state public assistance programs.

12. What is an office that provides state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities?
Offices that provide state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities include offices providing vocational rehabilitation, transportation, job training, education counseling, rehabilitation, or independent-living services for persons with disabilities. Because States vary greatly in the manner in which they provide services to persons with disabilities, each State must identify the specific offices and agencies that fit this definition. In doing so, States may want to consult with offices that deal with issues related to persons with disabilities, such as the protection and advocacy offices and client assistance program offices within that State. A list of such offices for each State is available at: http://www.napas.org/aboutus/PA_CAP.htm. Section 7 also requires that if an office provides services to a person with disabilities at the person's home, the office must provide the opportunity to register to vote at home. Offices serving persons with disabilities often offer specialized assistance in completing the agency service or benefit application forms, and Section 7 requires such offices to offer voter registration applicants the same degree of assistance in completing voter registration forms as is offered in completing the agency's own application forms.

13. Does Section 7 require designation of other offices as voter registration agencies?
Yes. In addition to offices providing public assistance and services to persons with disabilities, States are also required by Section 7 to designate "other offices" within a State as voter-registration agencies. A State is free to determine which other agencies/offices should be designated, according to its needs and preferences, but it must make additional designations. Such other agency designations may include State or local government offices such as public libraries, public schools, State colleges, universities and community colleges, city and county clerks offices, marriage license offices, fishing and hunting license offices, government revenue offices, and unemployment compensation offices. Offices not otherwise covered under the NVRA that provide services to persons with disabilities may also be designated. In addition, with the agreement of such entities, States may designate as voter-registration agencies nongovernmental offices (such as private colleges) or Federal government offices.

14. Do armed forces recruitment offices have to provide voter-registration services?
Yes. The NVRA provides that all federal Armed Forces recruitment offices in each State subject to the NVRA must provide voter registration services. Within the Department of Defense, the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) maintains a web site that contains information concerning voter registration at Armed Forces recruitment offices: http://www.fvap.gov/reference/laws/nat-vote-reg-act.html and http://www.fvap.gov/reference/milinfo.html.

15. What voter-registration services must be made available?
Each office designated as a voter registration agency under Section 7 that provides service or assistance in addition to conducting voter registration must do the following:

1. distribute voter-registration application forms;

2. provide an "information" form that contains information on the voter-registration process (see Question 21 below for a description of the "information" form);

3. provide the same level of assistance to all applicants in completing voter-registration application forms as is provided with respect to every other service or application for benefits (unless the applicant specifically refuses such assistance);

4. accept completed voter-registration forms from applicants; and

5. transmit each completed voter-registration application to the appropriate State election official within a prescribed time frame.

16. What persons must be provided the opportunity to register to vote by Section 7 designated offices and agencies?
Designated agencies must provide the opportunity to register to vote to persons when: (1) applying for the agency's assistance or services; (2) seeking recertification or renewal of those services; and (3) changing address for the assistance or services.

17. What does Section 7 require with regard to distribution of voter registration forms and information forms?
Each office designated under Section 7 that provides services or assistance must distribute to each applicant for services or assistance, and each applicant for recertification, renewal or change of address with respect to such services or assistance, one of the voter registration application forms described in Question 20 below. In addition, each such office also must distribute to each applicant a form, known as an information form, described in Question 21 below.

18. What types of voter-registration forms can be distributed to applicants?
Section 7 agencies must distribute one of the three voter-registration forms listed below:

1. National Mail Voter Registration Form - The agency may use this federal form, which has been developed by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. This form is available on the EAC's web site at http://www.eac.gov/program-areas/national-voter-registration-form. In addition to containing a voter-registration application, this document lists certain state-specific voting requirements.

2. State mail voter-registration form - The agency may use its State mail voter-registration form, so long as it meets the requirements of Section 9 of the NVRA. This State form would not be as lengthy as the federal form, which contains information about voter registration in each state. Such a form should be easier for applicants to navigate and easier for agencies and election officials to process.

3. Designated agency's own form - The agency also may use its own version of a voter-registration form, if it is equivalent to the federal form and has been approved by the State. This type of form may lead to more efficient voter-registration transactions at designated agencies that provide services or assistance, since it could be made a seamless part of the forms normally used by the designated agency. As an example, where agency assistance/services forms are generated by computer during the process of interviewing the applicant, the voter-registration form likewise might be generated during this same process, pre-populated with information already provided by the applicant. Or a perforated voter-registration application might be attached at the bottom of a State services form, so that it can be easily completed, detached, and transmitted to the appropriate election official.

19. What is the "information form," and what should States put on it?
Section 7 requires that designated offices provide each applicant for services or assistance an information form containing specific information concerning the individual's opportunity to register to vote. This form, which may be part of or separate from the voter-registration form, must include the following information:

1. the question, "If you are not registered to vote where you live now, would you like to apply to register to vote here today?";

2. if the agency provides public assistance, the statement, "Applying to register or declining to register to vote will not affect the amount of assistance that you will be provided by this agency.";

3. boxes for the applicant to check to indicate whether the applicant would like to register to vote or declines to register to vote, together with the statement (in close proximity to the boxes and in prominent type), "IF YOU DO NOT CHECK EITHER YOU WILL BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE DECIDED NOT TO REGISTER TO VOTE AT THIS TIME." (Failure to check either box is deemed a declination to register for purposes of receiving assistance in registration but is not deemed a written declination to receive an application);

4. the statement, "If you would like help in filling out the voter registration application form, we will help you. The decision whether to seek or accept help is yours. You may fill out the application form in private."; and

5. the statement, "If you believe that someone has interfered with your right to register or to decline to register to vote, your right to privacy in deciding whether to register or in applying to register to vote, or your right to choose your own political party or other political preference, you may file a complaint with _ _ _ _ _." The blank should be filled by the name, address, and telephone number of the appropriate official to whom such a complaint should be addressed.

No information relating to a declination to register to vote may be used for any purpose other than voter registration. If the information form is separate from the voter-registration form, it is recommended that a statement regarding this non-use of declination information be included on the voter-registration form, as well as a statement that if the applicant registers to vote, information submitted will be used only for voter-registration purposes.

20. Are Section 7 agencies required to assist persons in completing a voter-registration application?
Yes. Section 7 agencies must provide to each applicant the same degree of assistance in completing the voter-registration application form as is provided by the office in completing its own agency forms, unless the applicant declines to register to vote or declines such assistance.

As an example, if it is the practice of a Section 7 agency for its employees to take time to explain to each applicant the various forms involved in the agency application, recertification or other process and answer applicant questions before the applicant completes the forms, this type of assistance must also be given at that time to such applicants with regard to the voter registration application process. Similarly, if it is agency practice to make sure that agency forms are completed and signed when submitted by an applicant, the same practice should apply to a voter registration application submitted by that applicant.

Offices serving persons with disabilities often offer specialized assistance in completing the agency service or benefit application forms. Section 7 requires such offices to offer voter registration applicants the same degree of assistance in completing voter registration forms as is offered in completing the agency's own application forms.

21. Does Section 7 put any restrictions on how office staff may interact with applicants?
Yes. Any person who provides voter-registration services at a Section 7 agency is prohibited from: 1) seeking to influence an applicant's political preference or party registration; 2) displaying any political preference or party allegiance; 3) taking any action or making any statement to an applicant to discourage the applicant from registering to vote; or 4) taking any action or making any statement that may lead the applicant to believe that a decision to register or not to register has any bearing on the availability of services or benefits.

22. What is a Section 7 agency required to do with completed voter registration applications accepted at its offices?
The designated agency must submit the completed voter-registration application to the appropriate State or local election official within a prescribed period of time unless the applicant desires to submit it himself or herself. The agency providing voter-registration services may not require a registrant to mail in the form himself or herself or discourage him or her in any manner from submitting the form to the agency. When an applicant submits a completed voter-registration application to an agency, the agency must transmit the form to the appropriate State or local election official within ten days. However, if the agency receives a completed voter-registration application within five days before the last day to register to vote in an election, the application must be transmitted to the appropriate State or local election official within five days.
SECTION 8 - ADMINISTRATION OF VOTER REGISTRATION

23. What does Section 8 of the NVRA require States to do?
Section 8 mandates certain action by States concerning the administration of voter registration for elections for federal office. These requirements involve important issues such as the date by which valid voter registration applications must be accepted and eligible persons registered, rules for changing a registrant's address information, rules for removing names from the voter registration list, and administration of a uniform, nondiscriminatory voter registration list maintenance program that complies with the Voting Rights Act.

24. Does Section 8 impose a time deadline on States for accepting voter registration applications and registering eligible applicants?
Yes. States must set a voter registration cutoff for federal elections of no more than 30 days before the election. A valid voter registration application from an eligible applicant is considered timely and the State has to ensure that the applicant is registered to vote if it is: 1) submitted not later than the lesser of 30 days, or the period provided by State law, before the date of a federal election to a driver's license office, designated public assistance or disability office, other designated office, or an appropriate State or local election official, or 2) postmarked not later than the lesser of 30 days, or the period provided by State law, before a federal election when submitted by mail. States can set a voter registration deadline for federal elections shorter than 30 days, and a number of States do so, but cannot set a longer deadline.

25. Are States required to let an applicant know what has happened to his or her application?
Yes. Section 8 requires State election officials to notify each applicant of the disposition of his or her registration application, e.g., a voter registration card if the application is accepted or a notice of rejection if the application is not accepted.

Where a notice of disposition for a mail voter registration application is sent by by nonforwardable mail and returned as undeliverable, Section 6 of the NVRA provides that local election officials may proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 8(d) of the NVRA (see Question 35 below).

26. Under the NVRA, what are the circumstances under which a State can remove a person's name from the voter registration rolls?
Section 8 permits States to remove the name of a person from the voter registration rolls upon the request of the registrant, and, if State law so provides, for mental incapacity or for criminal conviction. The Act also requires States to conduct a general voter registration list maintenance program that makes a reasonable effort to remove ineligible persons from the voter rolls by reason of the person's death, or a change in the residence of the registrant outside of the jurisdiction, in accordance with procedures set forth in the NVRA. The list maintenance program must be uniform, nondiscriminatory and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

27. Does the NVRA contain any prohibitions on removal of persons' names from the voter registration list?
Yes. Section 8 of the NVRA prohibits removing registrants from the voter registration list solely because of a failure to vote. It also places restrictions of notice and timing on removals from the voter registration list based on a change of residence.

28. What is "removal at the request of the registrant" under Section 8?
A "removal at the request of the registrant" under the NVRA involves first-hand information from a registrant that can originate in at least three ways: 1) a registrant requesting to remove his or her name from the voting registration list, 2) a registrant completing and returning a notice card indicating an address change outside the jurisdiction, or 3) a registrant submitting a new application registering to vote a second time in a new jurisdiction, and providing information regarding the registrant's prior voter registration address on the new application, which the State can treat as a request to cancel or transfer his or her prior registration. A registrant advising of a new address within the same jurisdiction, or registering to vote a second time at a new address within the same jurisdiction, should trigger an updating of the original registration, rather than its cancellation.

29. Are there any required procedures in the NVRA concerning removal of a person's name from the voter registration rolls for mental incapacity, criminal conviction or death?
The NVRA does not require any particular process for removing persons who have been disqualified from voting pursuant to State law based upon a criminal conviction or an adjudication of mental incapacity. Moreover, while the NVRA requires States to make reasonable efforts to remove persons who have died, it does not require any particular process for doing so. States can follow whatever State law process exists for doing this. Section 303(a) of HAVA adds an additional requirement for NVRA covered States to coordinate the statewide voter registration database with State records on felony status and death. HAVA provides that list maintenance on the statewide database shall be done on a regular basis in accordance with the requirements of the NVRA.

In those States where state law provides for removals from the voter rolls based on mental incapacity or criminal conviction, state laws generally provide for election officials to rely on court determinations to identify the individuals who are subject to removal. Section 8 of the NVRA also provides for the U.S. Attorney Offices to forward information regarding felony criminal convictions in federal courts to chief state election officials.

30. Under what circumstances does the NVRA allow States to remove a person from the voting rolls based on change of residence?
A State may remove the name of a person from the voter registration list due to a change of residence upon 1) the person's written confirmation of a change of residence to a place outside the jurisdiction, or 2) completion of the notice process described in Section 8(d) of the NVRA.

31. What does the NVRA notice process require to remove a person from the voting rolls based on a change of residence?
In the absence of a written confirmation from a registrant of a change of address outside the jurisdiction, Section 8(d) of the NVRA sets forth a process for removing a person based on change of residence. This process requires sending a forwardable notice, in the form of a postage-prepaid and pre-addressed return card, on which the person may state his or her current address. The notice must include the language required by Section 8(d)(2) of the NVRA. For example, the notice must advise (1) that if the registrant did not change his or her residence, or changed residence but remained in the registrar's jurisdiction, the registrant should complete and return the card not later than the voter registration deadline for the next election; (2) that if the card is not returned, affirmation or confirmation of the registrant's address may be required before the registrant is permitted to vote in a federal election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice; and (3) that if the registrant does not vote in an election during that period the registrant's name will be removed from the list of eligible voters.

The jurisdiction may designate the registrant as inactive if the registrant fails to return the card by the voter registration deadline for the next election after the notice is sent.

The jurisdiction may remove the registrant from the voter rolls after sending the notice in two circumstances. First, if the registrant confirms in writing, such as by completing and returning the notice card, that the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the jurisdiction then the registrant can be removed from the list immediately. Second, if the registrant fails to respond to the notice and fails to vote or to appear to vote in an election beginning on the date the notice is sent and ending on the day after the date of the second federal general election after the notice is sent, then the registrant can be removed from the list after that second federal general election.

32. Does the NVRA create a "safe harbor" procedure under which States can satisfy their obligation to conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the voter rolls due to a change of residence?
Yes. The NVRA gives one example of a safe harbor procedure. Under that procedure, States may utilize change-of-address information supplied by the United States Postal Service through its National Change of Address program (NCOA) to identify registrants who may have changed residences and then take one of two actions.

1. If it appears from the NCOA information that the person has moved to a different residence in the same registrar's jurisdiction, the registrar changes the registration records to show the new address and sends the registrant a notice of the change by forwardable mail and a postage prepaid, pre-addressed return form by which the registrant may verify or correct the address information.

2. If it appears that the registrant has moved to a residence outside the registrar's jurisdiction, the registrar uses the NVRA's Section 8(d) notice process and may remove the registrant from the voter rolls after satisfying all requirements of that process.

33. Do States have to use the NCOA process to initiate the notice process?
No. States do not have to use the NCOA process. Under the NVRA, States must have a general program that makes a reasonable effort to identify and remove the names of voters who have become ineligible to vote by means of a change of address. The program has to be uniform, non-discriminatory, in compliance with the Voting Rights Act and must be completed 90 days before a federal election. States otherwise have discretion under the NVRA and HAVA in how they design their general program, and States currently undertake a variety of approaches to how they initiate the notice process.

For example, some general programs involve a State undertaking a uniform mailing of a voter registration card, sample ballot, or other election mailing to all voters in a jurisdiction, and then using information obtained from returned non-deliverable mail as the basis for correcting voter registration records (for apparent moves within a jurisdiction) or for initiating the notice process (for apparent moves outside a jurisdiction or non-deliverable mail with no forwarding address noted).

Another example involves general programs where States initiate the notice process based on information showing that a voter has not voted in elections nor made contact with a registrar over some period of time. This is not prohibited by the NVRA and its bar on removing voters from the list solely for failure to vote, since it relies on the NVRA notice process, and thus utilizes both a notice and a waiting period of two federal general elections.

34. Does Section 8 impose any time restrictions on States as to when a general list maintenance program can be conducted?
Yes. Section 8 requires States to complete any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official list of eligible voters not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary election or general election for federal office. This 90 day deadline applies to state list maintenance verification activities such as general mailings and door to door canvasses. This 90 day deadline does not, however, preclude removal of names at the request of the registrant, removal due to death of the registrant, removal due to criminal conviction or mental incapacity of the registrant as provided by State law, nor does the deadline preclude correction of a registrant's information.

35. Are there any protections in the NVRA for those eligible registered voters who have changed address to another location within a registrar's jurisdiction, or are otherwise on an inactive voter list, but have not notified the registrar prior to the date of a federal election?
Yes. The NVRA contains fail-safe provisions to enable such persons who show up to vote on a federal election day to update their registration and to vote in that election even though they have not notified the registrar of the address change:

1. An eligible registered voter who has moved to an address in an area covered by the same polling place as his or her previous address is permitted to vote at that same polling place upon oral or written affirmation by the registrant of the change of address at the polling place;

2. An eligible registered voter who has moved to an address in an area covered by a different polling place from the polling place for his or her previous address, but within the same registrar's jurisdiction and the same congressional district, at the option of the registrant:

1. shall be permitted to correct the voting records and vote at the old polling place upon oral or written affirmation by the registrant of the new address before an election official at that polling place; or

2. shall be permitted to correct the voting records and vote at a designated central location within the same registrar's jurisdiction, upon written affirmation by the registrant of the new address on a standard form provided by the registrar; or

3. shall be permitted to correct the voting records for purposes of future elections at the new polling place, and shall be permitted vote in the current election at that polling place if allowed under State law, upon confirmation by the registrant of the new address by such means as are required by law.

A central voting location need not be made available by the registrar if State law allows the person to vote at either the old or new polling place in the current election upon oral or written affirmation of the address change.

The failsafe provisions of Section 8 draw a distinction between the registrant's need for "affirmation" or "confirmation" of a new address, depending upon the circumstances in which the failsafe voting occurs.

36. What if a mistake has been made, and registration records indicate that a person has moved from an address covered by a polling place when that person has in fact not moved?
If a person has not moved, but the registration records indicate that a person has moved from an address covered by a polling place, that person shall be permitted to vote at that polling place upon oral or written affirmation by the registrant that the registrant continues to reside at his or her address previously known to the registrar.

37. Are States required to keep records of their voter registration activities under the NVRA?
Yes. Section 8 of the NVRA requires that States keep and make available for public inspection, for a period of at least two years, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters, except to the extent that such records relate to a declination to register to vote or to the identity of a voter registration agency through which any particular voter is registered. The records to be kept shall include lists of the names and addresses of all persons to whom Section 8(d) notices are sent, and information concerning whether or not each such person has responded to the notice, as of the date that inspection of the records is made.

In addition, an independent requirement in 52 U.S.C. 20701 mandates that all records and papers relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting in any election for federal office, be preserved for a period of twenty-two months from that federal election. Since voter registration is unitary and permanent, this obligation is ongoing, such that registration records must be preserved as long as the voter registration to which they pertain is considered an "active" one under local law and practice, and those records cannot be disposed of until the expiration of twenty-two months following the date on which the registration ceased to be "active." Hence, States should maintain all written records related to applications to register to vote as well as declinations to register to vote. The Department of Justice can require that such records be produced for inspection and copying through a written demand, and a lawsuit to enforce such demand.
COORDINATION, REPORTING, AND ENFORCEMENT

38. What are the State's obligations to coordinate voter registration activities?
The State is responsible for ensuring compliance with the NVRA. The NVRA requires each State to designate a State officer or employee as the chief State election official to be responsible for coordinating State responsibilities under the Act. Because of the importance of monitoring compliance with the NVRA's voter registration requirements, States should consider employing a person at the State level to serve as the NVRA coordinator for the State. This person could be responsible for coordinating and overseeing all NVRA activity at designated voter-registration agencies/offices in the State. In addition, States may consider employing a person at each designated voter-registration agency, and at each designated agency office, whose ongoing responsibility would be coordinating and overseeing the conduct of all voter registration activities in that agency/office. This person's responsibilities could include ensuring that the voter registration responsibilities are carried out, ensuring that the voter registration system is administered in a uniform and non-discriminatory manner, reviewing monthly data of voter-registration activity at voter registration offices, monitoring voter-registration activities, training new employees and providing for training updates at periodic intervals, ensuring an adequate supply of forms, and resolving voter-registration coordination issues that arise between State and local officials.

39. For jurisdictions covered by the language minority provisions of the Voting Rights Act, what obligations do such jurisdictions have to ensure voter registration access under the NVRA to covered limited-English proficient citizens?
Certain States and local jurisdictions are covered by the language minority requirements of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) for specific language minority groups. The VRA requires that when covered states and jurisdictions provide voter registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, or other materials or information relating to the electoral process, including ballots, they must provide them in the language of the applicable minority group as well as in the English language. The NVRA provides that its requirements do not supersede, restrict, or limit the application of the requirements of the VRA. Thus, each State or jurisdiction covered by the language minority requirements of the VRA should consider how to ensure that NVRA voter registration opportunities are conducted so as to provide language access to covered limited-English proficient language minority citizens so that they have equal access to the voter registration process.

To assist covered States and jurisdictions, extensive information regarding the language minority requirements is available on the Voting Section's website: http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/sec_203/activ_203.php. Various language resources are also available on the EAC website. These include versions of the national mail voter registration form translated into Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese. http://www.eac.gov/voter/Register to Vote. These resources also include translated versions of a voter's guide to federal elections. http://www.eac.gov/voter/voters-guides. And these resources also include a glossary of election terms in six languages. http://www.eac.gov/voter/language-accessibility-program-1.

40. What agency is responsible for enforcement of the NVRA?
The U.S. Department of Justice has enforcement responsibility under the NVRA. The Department undertakes activities designed to ensure compliance with the NVRA, including monitoring state compliance, conducting investigations and, filing litigation in federal court to enforce the NVRA's requirements. Private parties may also bring litigation in federal court to enforce the NVRA. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission is responsible for administration of the national voter registration form, as well as State reporting under the NVRA.

41. What are some examples of the Department's activities to enforce the provisions of the NVRA?
An extensive description of the Department's NVRA enforcement activities can be found here.

In particular, significant NVRA decisions or settlements have been obtained by the Department in litigation with the State of Tennessee (Sections 5 and 7 of the NVRA); and the State of New York (Section 7 of the NVRA).

42. How can I contact the Department of Justice about the NVRA's voter registration requirements?
As a general matter, the Department of Justice does not issue advisory opinions concerning the statutes that it enforces. The Department will certainly consider inquiries from State officials concerning the NVRA, however, in the hope of providing assistance. Within the Department of Justice, the responsibility for NVRA enforcement is committed to the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division. You may reach the Voting Section at its toll-free telephone number, 800-253-3931.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The National Voter Registration Act Of 1993 (NVRA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These questions and answers are designed to provide information and guidance to state and local officials as well as the general public concerning the provisions of the NVRA and its interaction with the other statutes enforced by the Department. The Department welcomes comments concerning this document. OVERVIEW What is the NVRA?

# data[].attributes.body
The law provides funding to help states meet these new standards, replace voting systems and improve election administration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 was passed by the United States Congress to make sweeping reforms to the nation's voting process. HAVA addresses improvements to voting systems and voter access that were identified following the 2000 election. Read the Help America Vote Act of 2002

HAVA creates new mandatory minimum standards for states to follow in several key areas of election administration. The law provides funding to help states meet these new standards, replace voting systems and improve election administration. HAVA also established the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to assist the states regarding HAVA compliance and to distribute HAVA funds to the states. EAC is also charged with creating voting system guidelines and operating the federal government's first voting system certification program. EAC is also responsible for maintaining the National Voter Registration form, conducting research, and administering a national clearinghouse on elections that includes shared practices, information for voters and other resources to improve elections. HAVA requires that the states implement the following new programs and procedures:

Provisional Voting

Voting Information

Updated and Upgraded Voting Equipment

Statewide Voter Registration Databases

Voter Identification Procedures

Administrative Complaint Procedures

History of the National Clearinghouse on Election Administration (PDF)

The U.S. Congress first created a National Clearinghouse for Information on the Administration of Elections within the General Accounting Office (GAO), under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Congress established this office in an effort to combat a specific problem: the country's election administrators were not easily exchanging information on election practices and procedures that would enable them to more efficiently administer elections.

In 1975, this function was transferred to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974. The Act, as revised, specifically calls upon the Commission to serve as "a national clearinghouse for the compilation of information and review of procedures with respect to the administration of Federal elections." The FEC's National Clearinghouse on Election Administration (the Clearinghouse) was established to serve that function. The office was also known as the FEC Office of Election Administration (OEA).

The Clearinghouse organized its activities into six program areas: research; information; public speaking; election legislation; voting system standards; and voting accessibility. The first four program areas are the result of the original Congressional mandate. The Clearinghouse assumed the latter two programs as a result of further specific Congressional action in 1980 and 1984, respectively. With the enactment of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), the Clearinghouse was charged with (1) developing and maintaining a national mail voter registration form; and (2) submitting a biennial survey report to Congress on the impact of NVRA and changes in voter registration statistics.

HAVA was passed by the U.S. Congress in 2002 to make sweeping reforms to the nation's voting process. HAVA addresses improvements to voting systems and voter access that were identified following the 2000 election. HAVA mandates that EAC test and certify voting equipment, maintain the National Voter Registration form and administer a national clearinghouse on elections that includes shared practices, information for voters and other resources to improve elections. Section 803 of HAVA transferred the functions of the FEC's National Clearinghouse on Election Administration to an Election Assistance Commission (EAC). HAVA describes the clearinghouse role of EAC.

Section 202 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) describes the duties of the U. S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). HAVA states that the Commission shall serve as a national clearinghouse and resource for the compilation of information and review of procedures with respect to the administration of Federal elections. EAC shall establish and maintain a clearinghouse of information available to the public on:

Voluntary guidance adopted by EAC regarding the following HAVA mandates: voting system standards, provisional voting and voting information requirements, computerized statewide voter registration list requirements and requirements for voters who register by mail.

Information on the experiences of State and local governments in implementing the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines and in operating voting systems in general.

Information relating to the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification of voting system hardware and software.

Information and training on the management of HAVA payments and grants.

The Help America Vote College Program.

EAC's responsibilities under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) which includes the development and maintenance of the national voter registration form and biennial reports to Congress on the impact of NVRA on the administration of federal elections.

Studies regarding election administration issues and other activities to promote the effective administration of Federal elections.

Compilation of federal and state laws and procedures regarding election administration and voting.

SEC. 206. Dissemination of Information. In carrying out its duties, the Commission shall, on an ongoing basis, disseminate to the public (through the Internet, published reports, and such other methods as the Commission considers appropriate) information on the activities carried out under this Act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 was passed by the United States Congress to make sweeping reforms to the nation's voting process. HAVA addresses improvements to voting systems and voter access that were identified following the 2000 election.