Voting Rights in America

Voting Rights in America

G. W. Goodrum, Jr.

            This paper will identify and examine barriers to voting rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.  The voting rights that were previously protected by Federal law are now at risk of being overturned by state and local government officials that govern elections.  There will be a brief history lesson on voter suppression throughout certain
states and the intent of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  This paper will also briefly explain the Supreme Court decision to strike down a key part of the act, requiring states to receive permission before changing voting laws.  Finally this paper will discuss new challenges that the voter will face and possible impacts on our future.

            Shortly after the Civil War there was a period in American History considered the Reconstruction Era (1865 – 1870).  There were three significant amendments ratified during this period that would open doors once closed to Americans of color.  They were the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments to the Constitution.  The 13 Amendment, abolished slavery, the 14^th Amendment guaranteed citizenship and the 15^th Amendment gave Black males the right to vote.  The most notable of these three were the 15^th Amendment, which guaranteed voting rights shall not be denied based upon race, color or previous condition of servitude. 

            Under the reconstruction plans of President Lincoln, there were 11 southern states, South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida and Texas that seceded from the Union.  These particular states found creative and covert ways undermine the amendment by instituting barriers that disqualified black voters overwhelming more than whites.  According to Malveaux (2004), “Southern states found ways to get around this law with grandfather clauses (which only allowed people to vote if their grandfather had voted), literacy tests, poll taxes and various character tests. Though many African Americans exercised the right to vote between 1870 and 1876, by 1910 a combination of discriminatory laws and domestic terrorism (the Ku Klux Klan) had disenfranchised African Americans.” 

            Meanwhile as Congress attempted to reconstruct the embattled south through racial harmony and economic advancements the African Americans along with their Republican counterparts faced the challenges over the legacy of slavery.  Hutton (2005) noted, in the situation of the United States in 1865, the laissez-faire solution to racial animosities in the South could only lead to white supremacy and black degradation.   Between 1865 and 1895 politics in the south for African Americans was subject to violence and political disability.  This trend of violence and political discord existed until the 1960s.

            On August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act (VRA).  After nearly a century later after passing of the 15^th Amendment, freedmen could finally feel as though they were free.  The signing of the VRA would finally put an end to poll taxes, literacy test or any covert or subversive act by individuals or factions designed to deter election voting.  The intent of the VRA was to collectively and effectively enforce the 15^th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.  In 1966, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the VRA in order to combat the pervasive and persistent widespread discrimination in voting laws.

            In Section 2 of the VRA prevented local authorities from establishing and enacting prerequisites to voting, or standards, practices, or procedures that would impose, deny or abridge the rights of any citizen of the US to vote based upon race or color.  Section 3 instituted proceedings to enforce the 15^th Amendment jurisdictions while Section 4 prohibited the use of any "test or device" to deny a individuals the right to vote.  Section 4 also prescribed a two-part formula to determine which states would be subject to section 5 of the VRA. In this section, temporary legislation required states like Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia to would have to have preclearance in order to change voting rights practices, procedures and laws.  Though the 15 Amendment and the VRA achieved many positive results, the legislation was temporary at best. 

            In 1865, the freedmen were not really free, nor are most of their descendants really free in 1965.  Slavery was but one aspect of a race and color problem that is still far from solution here or anywhere.  In America particularly, the grapes of wrath have not yet yielded all their bitter vintage.

- Samuel Eliot Morison-

            supposed to protect voters against suffrage while attempting to register or even at the polls. year prior, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 framework comparable which is what happenir views on reconstruction for the embattled South were to promote racial harmony and economic advancements.  Instead they discovered the ferocious racism of the Southern whites, because the whites were the majority in all but two Southern states. 

 ed The last of these amendments gave Congress the

              This era lasted from 1865 - 1870Period.  In

            On Jun 25, 2013 the Supreme Court struck down key legislation to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  The changes to the act were crucial in enforcing the 15^th Amendment’s injunctions to the Constitution On Aug 6, 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into the law “The Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Under this provision the Federal Government could enforce the 15^th Amendment to the Constitution.  The 15^th Amendment was the last of the “Reconstruction Amendments” to be adopted and was designed to prohibit discrimination against voters on the basis of race or previous conditions of servitude.  Prior to the amendment, states were allowed to determine voter eligibility and qualifications. 

           

The United States Constitution Since the beginning of time man has been involved in conflicts.  As early as infancy, according to researchers, we react shyly to adult strangers especially during the latter part of our first year.  Researchers claim that shy children over the age of three years’ experience approach avoidance conflicts.  The results of this research revealed behavioral inhibitions and temperament towards an individual’s personality differences from birth to present development.  The cognitive changes in social characteristics formed habitual patterns of behavior in children and adults (Matsudo, 2013). 

            These behavioral patterns can be qualitative or judgmental and not quantitative, or subjective/intuitive and not rational (Hall, 1981).  These differences can categorically range from race, culture, religion, sex, language, the environment, politics, government, ethic and personal businesses.   The differences are often referred to as opinions or viewpoints.  Characteristics of our opinions whether we agree or disagree will always interact with others.  There is a false dichotomy that some believe, if you and I disagree, then I am right and you are wrong.  This faulty assumption displays the problem of different priorities and viewpoints that arise in day to day events.     

            The differences in priorities and viewpoints can be attributed to attitudes and values when interacting or conflicting with others.  Studies have shown minor differences or patterns in priorities caused by emphasized viewpoints can develop into conflicts or differences of opinions (Hall, 2007).  These differences of opinions can also develop into frustrations, problems or frictions if allowed to pile up, then even minor disagreements may very well degenerate into major conflicts and even expand, involving other individuals (Doucet, 2009). 

            In our society, there is a dynamic developing in the workplace; violence.  This issue of workplace violence comes directly from the heart of a hypersensitive, overactive, technologically savvy, overstressed population.  The attitudes and beliefs that we have, have forced us to internalize violent behavior as a way to deal with conflicts.  In a nutshell, we have lost the capability to rationalize and cope with adversity using interpersonal skills.  Whatever the form, workplace violence does not materialize in a vacuum; it evolves from smaller, insignificant events, mainly because the environment provides fertile ground (Johnson, 1996) for it to occur.    According to Cahn and Abigail (2007), “competition in a conflict creates a pattern of interaction that intensifies the competition and the desire to outdo the other.  Whereas the competition may start with friendly banter…the desire is distorted into a desire to win.”  The violence that evolves from a simple desire to win may escalate into workplace violence.  Managers in the workplace play a vital role in predicting and preventing such violence from ever escalating.  They should know when to invoke the S-TLC (Stop, Think, Listen and Communicate) system in the workplace.  When conflicts arise, the manager must know when to intervene and have participants to stop, think, listen and communicate with each other. 

            By managers intervening in the conflicts, he or she will often witness major personality issues between the participants.  Personality issues and types are often at the center of most conflicts that we face.  When involved in conflict situations personality disorders and emotional behavior are more prevalent when resolution attempts are made.   Personality types can be divided into three categories: dominant, assert vices non-assertive and passive-aggressive.  Dominant personalities tend to abusive, threatening and domineering.  Compared to assertive traits that causes a person to stand up for their selves.  The non-assertive personality type will often have poor eye contact or a defeated aura about themselves.  Whereas, the passive-aggressive personality type might be accommodating this times or angry the next depending on their mode swings. 

            In the workplace conflicts do arise and must be dealt with as quickly as possible.  Most conflicts that evolve in the workplace can be avoided and prevented through intervention.  There once was a time when we went to work to earn a living; today, we go to work and encounter death.  In 1993, The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recorded more than 1,000 murders, six million threats and more than two million workers were physically attacked while on the job (Van Aalten, 1994).  This raises the question, why is there so much workplace violence? 

            The question can be answered with one word, stress; stress creates frustration and danger in the workplace.  With companies downsizing, reducing the force and or forced early retirements, they are creating a highly stressful environment.  Employees know and understand they are being paid less for more work, making their homes dysfunctional with inadequate incomes coupled with insecure employment.  These are stressful components that can lead to workplace violence. 

            How can violence be avoided in the workplace?  Johnson (1996) noted that, we should reduce stress in the workplace, train staff members to handle problems at the lowest level, look for underlying causes when intervening in conflicts, build a support team, train managers to take all threats seriously.  Violence can be prevented if conflicts are resolved in a timely manner.    

            If conflicts can’t be resolved at the lowest level there are other methods called arbitration and mediation.   In the United States of America there are over 317 million people, world-wide there are over 7 billion people.  With that many people living all around us, there are bound to be conflicts.  According to Cahn and Abigail (2007), “recent studies have shown that conflict is a “common and inevitable feature” in close social relationships.”  With conflicts come resolutions; how an individual chooses to resolve their conflicts depends on variables like the participants, their relationships, the environment and a willingness to work out social differences. 

            Most of our social issues can be settled by communicating with one another, while other conflicts must be settled using alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods.  These alternate methods to settle conflicts are called mediation and arbitration.    Though communicating with conflicting parties should always be first technique used to resolve conflicts, these alternatives specifically the American Arbitration Association (AAA) are offered to mediation parties for amicable resolution of disputes. 

Founded in 1926, the AAA has provided tens of thousands of mediations to individuals, companies, state and local government agencies, courts and many other organizations, according to www.adr.org. The function of this organization is to be an alternative to litigating a dispute in the courtroom (Sido, 2005).   Why do people choose ADR?  People choose these alternatives for a myriad of reasons such as, attempting to lower court caseloads, reduce parties’ expenses, and or to increase voluntary compliance with resolutions (Caper and LaRocca, 2008).   With arbitration and mediation the advantages are beneficial to all involved especially in reducing cost and certain resolution.   The next generation will most likely enjoy the aspects of hybrid “med-arb” proceeding.  This hybrid combines the virtues of mediation and arbitration that will significantly reduce cost, decrease dispute resolution time and overall improve efficiency (Brewer, 1999).   

            The final step in conflict resolution is forgiveness.  There are several levels of apology, which are used progressively by participants as the offense committed becomes more serious and the offender can simply say “I’m sorry” to assist in obtaining forgiveness (Schlenker and Darby, 1981).  Most Americans are religious to a point, and believe that you are to forgive those who offend you, in order to be forgiven for your offense.  Forgiveness will reconcile and restores relationships of every sort.  Forgiveness is a cognitive process that consists of letting go of feelings of revenge and desires to retaliate (Cahn and Abigail, 2007).  When you let go of your feelings, you create a healthy environment not only for yourself, but also for others around you.              Reconciling conflicts between persons can also have mental and physical benefits.  Everyone can be hurt with words or actions but forgiveness lessens the grip on you and helps you focus on other positive parts of your life.  Forgiveness can lead to understanding, empathy and compassion for others.  Through forgiveness you can develop healthier relationships, greater spiritual well-being, lower blood pressure, less anxiety and less stress in the workplace and at home.  

            Communications is the key to forgiveness.  Make every effort to communicate with the other participant that forgiveness is what you are seeking.  Life is too short to carry grudges.  The Bible tells us in Matthew 16:24, to take up your cross and follow Jesus.  Take your burden or conflict to the cross and leave it there.  Don’t carry it, let go and let God deal with your anger or feelings of revenge.  Let go of it!

            In the following paper I have attempted to explain why conflicts occur and how our personality types manage dilemmas that we face.  I provided information on how ethics play a key role in the decision to resolve conflicts in the work place.  I also attempted to show how forgiveness, mediation and arbitration will provide guidance to effectively resolve current and potential conflicts in our daily lives.

References

Huston, J. L. (2005). An alternative to the tragic era: Applying the virtues of bureaucracy to the

reconstruction dilemma. Civil War History, 51(4), 403-415,356. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/208243986?accountid=32521

Malveauz, J. (2004). Are you voting rights at risk? Black Issues in Higher Education, 21(2), 38. 

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/194216843?accountid=32521

Cahn, D.D., & Abigail, R.A. (2007). Managing conflict through communication (4th Ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson Education

Carper, D. L., & LaRocco, J. B. (2008). What parties might be giving up and gaining when

deciding not to litigate: A comparison of litigation, arbitration and mediation. Dispute

Resolution Journal, 63(2), 48-60. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/198160039?accountid=32521

Doucet, O., Poitras, J., & Chênevert, D. (2009). The impacts of leadership on workplace

conflicts. International Journal of Conflict Management, 20(4), 340-354.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10444060910991057

Johnson, P. R., & Indvik, J. (1996). Stress and violence in the workplace. Employee Counselling

Today, 8(1), 19-24. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/198455223?accountid=32521

       

Matsuda, Y., Okanoya, K., & Myowa-Yamakoshi, M. (2013). Shyness in early infancy:

Approach-avoidance conflicts in temperament and hypersensitivity to eyes during initial

gazes to faces. PLoS One, 8(6) doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065476

Sido, K. (2005). Avoiding the courtroom through mediation or arbitration. Consulting –

Specifying Engineer, 38(6), 65-66. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/220592849?accountid=32521

Van Aalten, C.B. 1994, "Violence in the workplace", The NCO Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 16-17.