TOPIC 3.11  Government  Responses to   Social Movements

Public policy promoting civil rights is influenced by citizen-state interactions and constitutional interpretation over time.

 Explain how the government has responded to social movements. 

The government can respond to social movements through court rulings and/ or policies.

•  Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which declared that race-based school segregation violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause 

•  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 

• Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 

•  The Voting Rights Act of 1965 

In January 1964, the states ratified the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which banned poll taxes in federal elections. Later that year, in July, Congress enacted the significant Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law prohibited discrimination in public places and enhanced federal enforcement of voting rights. Title VI specifically forbade discrimination in any program funded by the federal government, while Title VII prevented discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” in workplaces with at least 25 employees regarding hiring, promotion, and employment conditions. Six months after this legislation was passed, the Supreme Court confirmed that banning discrimination in public accommodations was a legitimate use of Congress’s authority over interstate commerce. Despite this progress, many civil rights advocates felt the law fell short in safeguarding voting rights. In March 1965, when 600 people marched from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, seeking voting rights, they were met with violence from local police. A few weeks later, protected by the National Guard, 3,000 marchers began the 54-mile journey, growing to 25,000 when they reached Montgomery. Five months later, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act 1965 into law. He had emphasized to Congress that the fundamental right was “the right to choose your leaders.” This law:

• increased federal court authority to stop discriminatory voting practices

• effectively banned literacy tests

• allowed the federal government to assign examiners to register voters

• required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to obtain approval from the Justice Department before changing any voting laws or practices. On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee, leading to riots in various cities across the country. A week later, Congress approved the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act, which made it illegal to discriminate in the sale and rental of housing.

Congress made several amendments to the Voting Rights Act in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006. The amendments in 1975 included protections for four “language minorities”: American Indians, Asian Americans, Alaskan Natives, and individuals of Spanish heritage. The 1982 amendments changed how violations of the act were determined by overriding Supreme Court rulings that required proof of intentional discrimination. Instead, the focus shifted to the outcomes of any standards or practices applied by a state or its political subdivisions.

In the following decade, Congress responded to Supreme Court decisions again by enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1991. This law revised Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, making it easier to demonstrate discrimination in "disparate impact cases." These cases involve situations where a company’s policy might inadvertently favor white individuals over minorities, regardless of intent. The act also introduced the option for jury trials in these employment discrimination cases and allowed compensation for emotional distress and punitive damages aimed at discouraging corporate misconduct.

This historical context shows that during the latter half of the twentieth century, the United States committed to eliminating legally enforced segregation, ensuring equality for Black Americans, and expanding their access to economic and educational opportunities that were previously restricted due to discrimination. In 2004, the U.S. Census Bureau highlighted the advancements made by Black Americans over the forty years following the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The findings indicated that family income nearly doubled, the poverty rate decreased significantly, the number of Black elected officials increased sixfold, and there were higher rates of high school and college completion. However, data also revealed that Black Americans still lag behind the white population, particularly regarding college education and family income.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 aimed to eliminate policies that hindered black individuals from registering and voting. Within two years of its enactment, black voter registration in the Deep South significantly increased: from 7% to 60% in Mississippi, 19% to 52% in Alabama, 27% to 54% in Georgia, and 32% to 59% in Louisiana. However, controversy emerged over proposed changes to election laws that, while not directly impacting the right to register or vote, could influence black political power. For instance, Mississippi suggested altering the election method for county supervisors. Previously, voters elected representatives from their local districts, but the new "at-large system" would have all supervisors elected based on countywide votes. Because many voters typically choose candidates of their own race, this change could disadvantage black candidates who could succeed in predominantly black districts but might struggle in areas with more white voters. The Voting Rights Act did not clearly indicate that it applied to these types of laws.

The Supreme Court addressed this issue in two ways. It first determined that the Department of Justice needed to approve any election law changes that could diminish the political influence of black voters, a situation referred to as "dilution of voting power." Secondly, in a case from 1980, the Court limited the application of this ruling by stating that the Voting Rights Act is only violated if officials intended to discriminate.

US Supreme Court and Civil Rights 

The protection of Civil Liberties and Rights in the USA today 

Shelby County v Holder 

Case study gerrymandering