The 14th Amendment: Abridging Privileges

The 14th Amendment states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The 14th amendment was created to grant rights to all natural born citizens and to protect the right given. Most notably, the 14th amendment gave former enslaved, and freedmen the right to vote. I want to be clear that when I pose the question, “Is everyone’s 14th amendment right is protected?” I’m evaluating it from a modern standpoint, but with the clear historical context of the disenfranchisement of minorities in this country. After the Reconstruction period, many states used systemic power to suppress, intimidate and abridge the vote of black people. And even though in decades following, women gained the right to vote, the voting age was changed and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed there is still lingering systemic issues with the disenfranchisement of minorities.

I previously mentioned the Voting Rights Acts of 1965, which many people use as evidence in arguments that Voting Rights is no longer a problem because the government has made it a point to protect suffrage. However, the very key parts of the Voting Rights Act have been gutted. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled to invalidate parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5 to 4 vote. Among other things, the states that had a history of voter suppression are no longer required to have federal approval to pass voting laws. However, I believe the government has too much faith in these states because there history of voter suppression has lingered into their present policy. As written in the New York Times article, Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act, the decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that voting identification laws that had been blocked (that many found to be discriminatory) would go into effect immediately, and the ruling also stated that redistricting map no longer needed federal approval. Given the history of racially fueled district lines that directly affect living conditions and ballot access, the decision has an effect on voting in minority areas.

As recently as the 2016 elections, a variety of southern states with history of voter suppression closed at least 868 polling sites.

As stated in a study by the Leadership Conference Education Fund, polling place closures are a particularly common and pernicious tactic for disenfranchising voters of color. Its common knowledge to politicians that these changes can place an undue burden on minority voters, who may be less likely to have access to public transportation or vehicles, given continuing disparities in socioeconomic resources. There’s even studies that shows the effects of limited voting resources, such as limited polling sites and ballot machines. According to a report by the Brennan Center for Justice, in the three states with the longest lines at poll sites in 2012, precincts in minority neighborhoods were deprived of what they needed to make voting run smoothly. The notion of waiting hours in line makes voting unappealing to many voters, coupled with the lack of resources provided to minority areas, and  Voting ID laws that have huge effects on minorities’ voting experience.

I’m not saying that these factors have enough weight to swing elections. But what I am saying is that the avoidable inconveniences implemented by states’ policies is an injustice to American Citizens. It seems to me that the American Government believes just because the right has been around for a long time, that there is no longer problems that linger due to systemic racism and discrimination. I’m curious to know if anyone else sees the disconnect between reality and government policy? Is the 14th amendment really protected? Is the government relying too much on states to make moral decisions besides their history of systemic discrimination and their present policies that don’t benefit minorities?