Latest / Voices Of Life / Did You Know? - The Voting Rights Act 1965

Transcript

Did You Know? - The Voting Rights Act 1965 · Voices Of Life

0:00
Welcome to this Voices of Life podcast. Where
0:05
history speaks, truth matters. And every story
0:09
reminds us why faith and freedom still stand.
0:13
Today's episode brings us into one of the most
0:16
defining moments in our constitutional republic.
0:20
The Voting Rights Act of 1965. A law born from
0:24
struggle, courage. and the determination of everyday
0:27
citizens who refuse to be silenced. And guiding
0:32
us through this powerful journey is your host,
0:35
Pastor David, a voice of clarity, conviction,
0:39
and compassion, committed to helping us understand
0:42
not just what happened, but why it still matters
0:47
today. Thank you for joining us today on Voices
0:50
of Life, the ministry of the Church for Life.
0:53
I'm Pastor David. Did you know that one of the
0:57
most transformative laws in American history
1:00
was born out of violence, courage, and a nation
1:05
finally forced to confront its own promises?
1:08
Today, we're exploring the Voting Rights Act
1:11
of 1965, a landmark law that reshaped our American
1:16
voting system and protected the right to vote
1:18
for millions who had been denied it for nearly
1:21
a century. After the Civil War, The 15th Amendment
1:26
declared that no citizen could be denied the
1:29
right to vote because of race or color, but states,
1:34
especially across the South, quickly found ways
1:37
around it. Beginning in the late 1800s, many
1:42
Southern states enacted laws designed to suppress
1:45
black voting while appearing race neutral. These
1:49
included literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather
1:52
clauses, white primaries, and widespread intimidation.
1:56
For decades, the constitutional promise of voting
2:00
rights existed only on paper. Now, what I just
2:04
told you is the standard response. But we here
2:10
at Voices of Life believe that we should go for
2:13
the whole truth and dive deep. And we did dive
2:15
deep into this because there is a lot more than
2:19
just a standard response to the Voting Rights
2:21
Act. So by the early 1960s, many civil rights
2:26
organizations like the SCLC, SNCC launched major
2:30
campaigns to challenge voter suppression. Selma,
2:33
Alabama became the epic center. Although African
2:38
Americans constituted a majority of the county's
2:40
population, very few were registered to vote.
2:43
Local officials blocked applications. Activists
2:46
were arrested. Violence was common. Selma was
2:50
chosen because it revealed the truth. The right
2:53
to vote was still being denied. And then came
2:58
Bloody Sunday. On March 7th, 1965, about 600
3:02
marchers attempted to cross the Edmund Pettus
3:05
Bridge. Now most of these marchers were peaceful.
3:08
Most of these marchers were unarmed. They were
3:12
met with tear gas, clubs, and mounted officers.
3:16
But the television cameras only captured everything
3:20
once the confrontation started. It did not capture
3:24
much of the beginning. Television broadcasts
3:29
that were shown shocked the nation, and I'd be
3:31
shocked by them too. I've looked at them. It's
3:33
terrible. Among the injured was a young John
3:37
Lewis. Bloody Sunday forced America to face what
3:41
was happening in the South. The events of Bloody
3:45
Sunday on March 7th, 1965 are among the most
3:50
documented episodes of the Civil Rights Movement.
3:52
The core facts are well established, but there
3:56
are nuances that are sometimes omitted in brief
4:00
summaries. So we're going to give you a little
4:03
bit more detail here. The march was part of a
4:06
broader campaign to secure voting rights for
4:08
blacks in Selma, Alabama. Several events led
4:12
directly to the march. Local black citizens had
4:15
spent months attempting to register to vote,
4:18
but faced repeated denials, long waits, literacy
4:20
tests, and other barriers. Civil rights organizations,
4:23
including the Southern Christian Leadership Conference
4:25
and the Student Non -Briving Coordinating Committee,
4:28
organized demonstrations to draw attention to
4:30
these conditions. On February 18, 1965, civil
4:34
rights activist Jimmy Lee Jackson was shot by
4:37
an Alabama state trooper during a nighttime protest
4:40
in nearby Marion, Alabama. He died eight days
4:44
later. His death prompted organizers to plan
4:47
a march from Selma to the State Capitol in Montgomery
4:50
to petition Governor George Wallace for voting
4:54
right protections. Well, usually when you have
4:58
a march of something this size, you're supposed
5:00
to have a permit. Did they have a permit? No.
5:04
At the time of the first march on March 7th,
5:07
the organizers did not have a state approval
5:09
to march the entire approximately 54 mile route
5:13
to Montgomery. Alabama officials publicly announced
5:17
they would not permit the march. They were warned
5:19
ahead of time, do not do the march until you
5:23
had approval. There was no court order authorizing
5:26
the march at that point, so they couldn't obtain
5:28
a court order to overrule the state government,
5:31
so the state government's laws were lawful at
5:33
the time. Now after the bloody Sunday, A federal
5:38
judge later ruled the marchers had a constitutional
5:40
right to march, subject to reasonable public
5:43
safety restrictions. And that's where we go into
5:46
that little back and forth about what they did
5:49
was safe or not safe. Did they interfere with
5:52
traffic? Yeah, they did. A lot. The marchers
5:55
walked right on US Highway 80, which is a public
5:58
roadway between Selma and Montgomery. Not only
6:02
did they endanger motorists, they endangered
6:04
themselves. They did not have the proper escorts
6:08
and setups that would have been in place once
6:12
the state gave approval or got a court order.
6:17
Their presence, you know, for this planned march
6:21
required road management over several days. It
6:23
wasn't something you could just do overnight
6:25
and they were in a hurry to do this because of
6:28
the death of that one peaceful protester. The
6:34
march only progressed to short distance, about
6:36
six blocks from Brown Chapel AME Church and across
6:40
the Edmund Pettus Bridge before law enforcement
6:44
stopped it. It never reached the point where
6:47
it significantly disrupted anything because the
6:51
state of Alabama told them not to do it and they
6:53
would stop them and they did. From the available
6:59
historical evidence, it indicates that most of
7:02
the 600 marchers on the bridge were unarmed and
7:04
they did not physically attack law enforcement.
7:06
But it's funny that the television footage was
7:11
only once the confrontation started. So you didn't
7:14
see what happened up to that point when they
7:17
first met. And I would have loved to have seen
7:19
that footage. But some of the participants just
7:23
expected they would likely be arrested, marching
7:25
into fines of state orders. an act of civil disobedience,
7:29
meaning they knowingly violated state directive
7:31
prohibiting the march. Civil disobedience is
7:34
unlawful, period, in any state, even today. There
7:39
is no accepted historical evidence that the group
7:41
as a whole initiated physical violence against
7:44
the troopers, but there is nothing to show the
7:46
beginning of the confrontation to show it wasn't
7:49
that way. So it could have gone either way. As
7:53
in most large groups, individual participants
7:55
may have reacted differently once violence erupted,
7:59
but the march itself is generally characterized
8:03
by historians as a nonviolent demonstration.
8:07
So what happened on that bridge? When the marches
8:09
crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they encountered
8:11
a line of Alabama State Troopers, Sheriff's deputies
8:15
under Jim Clark, mounted officers, and members
8:19
of the Volunteer Posse. The commanding officer
8:23
ordered the marchers to disperse, which is what
8:26
you're supposed to do if you're a peace officer.
8:29
You have a crowd that has assembled unlawfully.
8:31
You ordered them to disperse. That's what they
8:33
did. They did not disperse. Accounts differ slightly
8:38
on how much time was given, but at the end of
8:41
the day, the protesters did not disperse. So
8:46
the officers then used clubs, tear gas, mounted
8:50
charges, and physical force. Many marchers suffered
8:54
injuries, including fractures, head wounds, and
8:58
a television broadcast and footage showed all
9:02
that. The media loves to sensationalize everything,
9:04
but they don't necessarily have what happened
9:07
up until that point. Again, that would have been
9:09
a key understanding. Did the law enforcement
9:14
started or did the protesters started? Either
9:16
way, the law enforcement officers were wrong.
9:19
to use excessive force with unarmed protesters.
9:24
Tear gas would have been fine, physical force,
9:28
but clubs, mounted charges, that's too much.
9:33
That's even for today, it's too much. So why
9:36
didn't they wait for court approval? That would
9:39
have solved the whole problem. You would have
9:41
had federal protection. Everything would have
9:43
been fine and it likely would have been a peaceful
9:46
march all the way to Montgomery without anyone
9:48
getting hurt. But some of the organizers believed
9:51
that they had to take immediate action following
9:54
Jimmy Lee Jackson's death They just said they
9:57
couldn't wait and they wanted to keep the momentum
9:59
going for their voting rights campaign So they
10:01
were kind of playing to the cameras. I mean we
10:03
have to say that's the truth that they were playing
10:05
to the cameras Others believe that deliberately
10:09
challenging the state's prohibition would highlight
10:12
what they viewed as an unjust restriction This
10:15
approach reflected a broader strategy of nonviolent
10:17
civil disobedience throughout the civil rights
10:19
movement. Did law enforcement believe the march
10:23
was illegal? Absolutely they did. And they had
10:26
orders all the way up to the governor. From the
10:29
perspective of Alabama officials, the march had
10:32
not been authorized. They considered it an unlawful
10:35
attempt to march on a state highway. Governor
10:37
Wallace had directed law enforcement to prevent
10:39
it. But from the perspective of the March organizers
10:43
they believe the state's prohibition violated
10:46
their constitutional rights to free speech assembly
10:48
and petition and They're partially right there,
10:51
but not fully this legal dispute was later addressed
10:55
in the federal court as we said Following that
10:59
decision when the march was going to be done
11:03
they had federalized National Guard troops U
11:06
.S. Army personnel and federal marshals and they
11:09
provided security for the third march which began
11:12
on March 21st and did reach Montgomery on March
11:15
25th. So when it was following by the court's
11:20
approval and order there were no problems. The
11:25
historical consensus you know is split depending
11:28
on which side you look at. But the marchers intentionally
11:31
engaged in non -violent civil disobedience by
11:34
proceeding without state approval. They knowingly
11:37
challenged Alabama's prohibition to march. Law
11:39
enforcement considered the march unlawful under
11:41
state authority. At the same time, the marchers
11:43
were largely unarmed and did not initiate physical
11:48
violence before the officers used force, according
11:50
to the marchers. According to law enforcement,
11:53
several of the protesters broke out and attacked
11:55
law enforcement officers and that's what started
11:57
the physical confrontation. The televised response,
12:01
again, just showed the actual arrest that didn't
12:05
show what started the whole thing. So we don't
12:07
know exactly there, wish we could. But the enduring
12:11
debate is less about the basic sequence of events.
12:14
It's more about the impact on the public based
12:18
on the photographs and the television footage,
12:21
which was a testimony that violence is not the
12:24
answer here. Civil disobedience was not the answer
12:28
either. Let's take a look at what happened a
12:31
few days later. I think it was a week later,
12:34
on the 15th of March, President Lyndon B. Johnson
12:36
addressed Congress. He declared, their cause
12:40
must be our cause too, and we must overcome.
12:43
What we shall overcome was his exact quote. This
12:48
moment marked the turning point. The nation was
12:50
ready finally to act. Signed into law on August
12:54
6, 1965, the act attacked discrimination directly.
12:58
It had the several several provisions section
13:01
2 bans racial discrimination in the voting nationwide
13:04
Identify states with histories of discrimination
13:07
requires federal pre -clearance before states
13:10
can change voting laws federal examiners are
13:14
empowered to register voters directly and It's
13:18
suspension of literacy tests removing one of
13:21
the most abusive barriers. This was not symbolic.
13:24
It was enforcement There was an immediate impact.
13:29
The results were dramatic within months. Hundreds
13:32
of thousands of blacks registered to vote. In
13:34
Mississippi, black voter registration jumped
13:40
six to seven percent in 1964 to sixty percent
13:44
in 1969. For the first time since Reconstruction,
13:49
black citizens gained real political power. The
13:53
Act renewed repeatedly, 1970, 1975, 1982, and
13:59
2006, each time expanding protections. It also
14:03
survived major Supreme Court cases, including
14:05
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, Allen, and Bernbich.
14:11
In 2013, Shelby County v. Holder struck down
14:15
Section 4 coverage. In 2013, Shelby County v.
14:21
Holder struck down the Section 4 coverage formula,
14:24
making Section 5 inactive unless Congress creates
14:27
a new one. But Section 2, the heart of the Act,
14:30
remains in force today. Now Section 8, why does
14:35
it still matter? The Voting Rights Act transformed
14:38
American elections. It dismantled the segregation
14:43
barriers, it empowered millions, and it remains
14:46
a central safeguard against discrimination. The
14:50
Voting Rights Act of 1965 transformed American
14:54
elections by providing stronger federal enforcement
14:56
of the constitutional right to vote. But did
15:00
you know that the right to vote, something so
15:03
simple, so foundational, required generations
15:07
of struggles, sacrifice, and courage? And that
15:10
fight to protect it continues today. Today we
15:15
look at the SAFE Act, where federal government
15:17
is looking to require voter ID. Well, considering
15:22
how many illegal immigrants have been and non
15:27
-citizens have signed up to vote, and for every
15:31
vote that they do, it nullifies an American citizen's
15:34
vote. So the SAFE Act seems to be something where
15:38
the federal government is progressing to the
15:40
next level and absolutely understandable that
15:43
we need to have something to protect everybody's
15:46
vote so that everybody's vote counts. But there
15:50
are some truths that are not usually covered
15:53
in the standard responses. I mentioned that earlier
15:55
about voting rights. But Voices of Life feels
15:59
that the information is important to understand
16:01
the big picture in the United States. Yes, while
16:06
the former Confederate states had the most extensive
16:10
and systematic voter suppression laws, guess
16:13
what? Several northern and border states also
16:18
used poll taxes, literacy tests, residency requirements,
16:24
property qualifications, and other restrictive
16:26
voting laws during various times in U .S. history.
16:30
They don't talk about that. They just want to
16:32
point to the South and kind of stir the hate
16:36
from the Confederacy, and that's not all true.
16:40
When you omit something, you're not telling the
16:42
truth. The key difference here However, is that
16:46
the South These measures were generally part
16:50
of a coordinated system to disenfranchise black
16:53
voters after reconstruction Whereas in the northern
16:56
states they were more often aimed at immigrants
16:59
The poor didn't matter if you're white black
17:02
Hispanic didn't poor period Native Americans
17:06
and other groups though black voters could have
17:09
been affected too, but not like they were in
17:11
the South. So there was more than just one group
17:14
of people affected by voting. So we look at the
17:18
border states. Kentucky used a poll tax until
17:21
1891. They required payment of taxes before you
17:26
could vote. They also had literacy related requirements
17:31
for voter registration procedures. and they did
17:34
not have the same level of systematic black voter
17:36
suppression seen in Mississippi or Alabama. Maryland
17:40
considered several understanding clause and literacy
17:45
test proposals, adopted complex voter registration
17:48
laws. The legislature attempted to reduce black
17:50
voting, but many proposals failed because of
17:53
political oppositions and or core challenges.
17:56
Missouri adopted voter registration requirements
17:59
disproportionately affecting black voters in
18:02
cities. Whole taxes were debated, but not widely
18:05
implemented statewide, but there were some places
18:08
that were. Delaware used registration requirements
18:11
and a residency rule that could disproportionately
18:14
affect anyone that did not have our own property.
18:21
It did not affect so much statewide on literacy
18:24
tests as the Deep South, but it still affected
18:26
people. Northern states that had these type of
18:31
requirements, Connecticut, did in the 1800s I
18:36
think all the way through 1897 Massachusetts
18:39
didn't have a poll tax but they did have strict
18:43
residency requirements and complex voter registration
18:46
laws and when we talk about complex voter registration
18:48
laws meaning you have to go through several hoops
18:50
before you can actually register and it also
18:54
discouraged people so it reduced participation
18:57
New York had literacy requirements. New York,
19:01
could you believe that? But only if you were
19:04
a naturalized citizen. So if I was born here,
19:10
I was fine, but if I was naturalized, I had a
19:12
literacy requirement to pass. They did have strict
19:15
voter registration procedures and English language
19:18
literacy requirements for elections. Now that,
19:22
I'm a believer of that, and I think most people
19:25
are. The ballots should be in English. I mean,
19:28
they shouldn't be in other languages because
19:30
if we went to another country and we went to
19:33
reside there, they would not print one in English
19:36
for us because it's not native. It's not the
19:38
official language. And English is the official
19:40
language in the United States and many states
19:42
like Florida years ago passed those type of laws
19:46
as well. So, let's see, Pennsylvania had long
19:50
residency requirements, complicated registration,
19:54
and also naturalization documentation requirements
19:57
if you were not born in the United States. Rhode
20:00
Island maintained property qualifications for
20:03
some elections in the 1800s, and they also had
20:06
taxpayer requirements. New Hampshire? Taxpaying
20:11
requirements? and later they relied on residency
20:17
restrictions. Vermont had strong voting registration
20:23
regulations. Maine had broad suffrage, relied
20:28
primarily upon residency requirements. In the
20:31
western states like Arizona, English literacy
20:34
tests, and that affected a lot of the Native
20:37
Americans and Hispanic voters. Alaska, Same thing,
20:43
Alaska Native voters often face language barriers,
20:46
lack of translation in election materials, remote
20:49
polling access problems. The 1975 amendment to
20:53
the voting rights specifically addressed these
20:55
issues by requiring bilingual election materials
20:57
in certain jurisdictions, but a lot of that has
21:01
changed too as well because the demographics
21:04
have changed in different areas. California required
21:07
English literacy. And this was restricting Chinese
21:12
immigrants and Native Americans as well. So when
21:16
we take a look at all these other ones that we
21:20
can go on with more from things in California,
21:23
Connecticut, it was not always just the South.
21:26
It was not always the Confederate States. And
21:28
this is something that has not been widely told.
21:32
And it needed to be told, so that's why we are.
21:35
But Congress concentrated the strongest enforcement
21:38
mechanisms such as Section 4, Coverage Formula
21:41
and Section 5, Pre -Clearance on jurisdictions
21:44
where it used to be the Confederate states. That
21:48
was the big key that they did in these titles.
21:53
But the good news was when they passed these
21:57
voter reforms, it affected everybody, South,
21:59
North, everyone. And that's kind of important.
22:03
So just to summarize, restrictive voting laws
22:06
were not unique to the South, but the scale and
22:10
duration varied from area to area. So it may
22:15
have disenfranchised black citizens, but it disenfranchised
22:18
others too. Poor citizens, white, black, Hispanic,
22:21
Native Americans, immigrants. And, you know,
22:25
when there was Reconstruction, the southern states,
22:28
the discrimination was more targeted just to
22:31
black voters. You don't hear very much about,
22:35
well, the South has a lot of Hispanics, Texas,
22:40
Florida, and you don't hear about discrimination
22:42
to that. So it was always kind of pointed to
22:45
the black voters in that area. But the Voting
22:49
Rights Act of 1965 did away with that. The subsequent
22:53
changes helped with that as well. And it really
22:58
reinforced the ban on racial discrimination to
23:00
all states. in the United States and that's the
23:03
main thing every citizen should have the legal
23:07
right to vote non -citizens shouldn't be voting
23:10
and if they are they're breaking all laws and
23:13
they're nullifying citizens votes so we have
23:17
to think of it that way at least that's how I'm
23:19
gonna put it out to you guys hope you feel the
23:21
same way but thank you for listening to this
23:25
extensive part of the Voters Right Act of 1965
23:30
This has been another episode of Voices of Life
23:32
Did You Know? And just a reminder that history
23:36
is not just what happened. It's what we choose
23:40
to remember or what people start passing on.
23:43
We usually need to dig further to find the truth,
23:47
and the truth is what counts. I'm Pastor David.
23:51
Thank you for joining us. We'll see you next
23:53
time. Thank you for joining us on this journey.
23:58
through one of the most powerful chapters in
24:01
America's story. The Voting Rights Act of 1965
24:06
reminds us that freedom is never automatic. It
24:12
is protected by those willing to stand, speak,
24:16
and sacrifice so others may have a voice. We
24:21
hope today's episode has strengthened your understanding,
24:24
deepened your appreciation. and inspired your
24:28
commitment to the rights we all share. On behalf
24:32
of Voices of Life and your host, Pastor David,
24:36
thank you for listening, thank you for learning,
24:40
and thank you for choosing to remember. Until
24:45
next time, stay encouraged, stay informed, and
24:53
stay faithful.