Government paper (Texas voter ID law and the voting rights act (1965))

18

‘Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired’:

Challenges to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 & Why We Must Continue

to March

Dr. LaKerri R. Mack, Dr. Tonya Perry-Mitchell, Dr. Kaye Thompson-Rogers, Dr. Devona Foster-Pierre

Introduction

In 1964, when Fannie Lou Hammer told a reporter for The Nation that she was “… sick and tired of being sick and tired,” she did so against the backdrop of her own arrest and brutal beating (Demuth, 1964). She and other African Americans in the Deep South faced the day-to-day horrors of Jim Crow laws including voter disenfranchisement, lynchings, and the recent murder of Civil Rights leader, Medgar Evers in 1963 (Demuth, 1964). Voter suppression, especially in states like Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia, created a social and political environment of distrust of the American electoral process by Blacks due to “literacy tests, poll taxes, voter intimidation, all-White Primaries, and White poll workers’ complicit” denial of voter participation (Roberts-Lewis and Mack, 2015). More recently, in 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in the case, Shelby County v. Holder, that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was unconstitutional (Shelby County v. Holder, 2013). This form of constitutional legislation made Fannie Lou Hammer’s words more vivid in aptly expressing a sentiment of electoral distrust largely felt by many African Americans and others who are committed to the continued struggle for social justice.

The purpose of this article is: (1) to summarize the historical reasons the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was passed by the United States of America federal government; (2) evaluate the impact of the VRA of 1965 through

19

a historical lens; (3) to examine the current challenges to the VRA of 1965 including the implications of the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling to strike down Section 4b of the act; and (4) to highlight contemporary devices and/or threats used to subvert the right of all Americans to equitably engage in the electoral process as established by the VRA of 1965. History of African Americans & the Right to Vote

A number of historical and contemporary factors contributed to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These factors include the enslavement of African Americans, the institutionalization of discrimination through the use of Jim Crow laws, policies and practices, strategies of resistance to oppression and terrorism and the civil rights struggle for the right to vote (Galliard, 2004; Packard, 2001; Weisbrot, 1990; Williams, 1987). In an effort to gain civil rights as African Americans in America, the right to vote was prioritized as it affected all social and political aspects of daily life. The quality of life for African Americans before 1965 was deeply shadowed by the horrors of oppression (Galliard, 2004; Packard, 2001; Jeffries, 2009). This oppression was born of a history of enslavement, degradation and brutality. The enslaved were viewed as property and without personhood or citizenship. This reality was enforced by self- appointed owners of the enslaved and reinforced by the United States Constitution. Despite this lack of recognition of citizenship, nearly 200,000 African Americans fought against the South as Union soldiers (Associated Press, 1999). Following the Union’s defeat of the Confederacy, Congress enacted the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867, which permitted former states of the Confederacy to gain re-entry into the Union if they adopted new state constitutions that sanctioned male voting rights inclusive of Blacks. A year later, in 1868, the 14th Amendment was ratified. This Amendment granted citizenship to all people either born or naturalized in the United States (DOJ, 2013).

Two years following the passage of the 14th Amendment, the 15th

Amendment was passed. The 15th Amendment gave Black men the right to vote by establishing that the right to vote would not be denied based on “race, color or previous condition of servitude” (U.S. Constitution, 1870). Given that this was a federal law, the 15th Amendment usurped any existing state laws that banned Blacks from voting. In addition to passing legislation to prohibit the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous servitude status, Congress passed two additional pieces of legislation to support rights outlined in the 15th

Amendment. These pieces of legislation included the Enforcement Act of 1870 and the Force Act of 1871, which collectively outlined criminal penalties for

20

interfering with the right to vote and oversight of federal elections (DOJ, 2013). As a result, the immediate impact of the 14th Amendment, 15th Amendment, Enforcement Act of 1870, and the Force Act of 1871 was that hundreds of thousands of newly emancipated Blacks in formerly Confederate states registered to vote. Because Blacks represented the majority in many of the areas within these states, they were elected to state, local and federal offices (Packard, 2001; DOJ, 2013; Weisbrot, 1990).

Given the newly established legislation surrounding rights for African Americans, particularly the right to vote for Black men, southern resistance to the emerging power of newly emancipated Blacks was both rapid and extremely vicious. Following a series of Supreme Court decisions which limited the execution of the Enforcement Act, the Force Act, and the withdrawal of federal troops following the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877, southern opposition to the constitutionally-based rights of Blacks created optimal conditions for the violence which ensued. Without enforcement of the Enforcement Act of 1870 and the Force Act of 1871, southern resistance was given free reign to suppress by any means necessary the right of Blacks to exercise their constitutional power to vote, including violence and intimidation (Jeffries, 2009; Packard, 2001). In addition to violence and intimidation, resisting southern states spent the next two decades amending their constitutions to recapture and solidify White supremacy (U.S. Constitution, 1870). No longer constrained by previously imposed restrictions authorized by the Enforcement Act of 1870 and the Force Act of 1871, southern states were fervently committed to a process of re-establishing exclusive power over local and state jurisdictions. This absolute power made the selective enforcement of poll taxes and literacy tests on Blacks standard practice throughout the southern states, resulting in the disenfranchisement of a suppressed Black electorate (DOJ, 2013; Jeffries, 2009; Packard, 2001).

In addition to the enforcement of poll taxes and literacy tests, a wide range of suppressive election procedures and strategies were implemented by southern states, which were specifically designed to disenfranchise and subvert Black participation in the electoral process. Other tactics consisted of White-only primaries, lynchings, cross and church burnings, beatings, rapes, murders and false incarceration. The suppressive election procedures were intentional and misleading tactics that made it impossible for Blacks to be elected to office.

Many southern states altered their constitutions or passed laws to deny Blacks the right to vote during Reconstruction. After the poll tax was eliminated, some states required an annual registration fee. This fee prevented less affluent

21

members of the community from voting and from running for office. For instance, North Carolina rewrote its state constitution in 1868 to exclude civil rights and, by 1876; it amended its constitution to exclude the majority of Blacks from voting. Other restrictions included requiring that Blacks had to own property that valued a certain dollar amount in order to vote or preventing Blacks from voting who were deemed to have participated in, the “commission of a “crime.” A “crime” which prevented Blacks from voting was operationalized as any number of petty offenses that included being unemployed that carried an automatic charge of vagrancy.

In addition to the passage of legislation crafted specifically to suppress the right of Blacks to vote, the southern states also instituted statutes, ordinances and policies. Southern states sanctioned oppressive legislation towards Blacks which began in the late 1870s and was sustained long after 1965 was commonly referred to as “Jim Crow.” The term Jim Crow was developed from a minstrel show song from the 1830s, which is normally associated with codes of conduct that defined segregation throughout the South (Winters, 2000). Under Jim Crow, racial segregation (separate and unequal) and degradation of Blacks was legitimized and sustained for decades (Williams, 1987; Branch, 2013; Packard, 2001). Blacks were subjected to using separate and inferior public facilities to include schools, trains and buses. In addition to statutes and ordinances that enforced segregation, Jim Crow reflected a system of customs that reinforced and sustained White superiority. Blacks who failed to comply with the customs, such as tipping one’s hat to a White person, stepping aside from an approaching White person, and addressing White people with “sir” or “ma’am,” were subjected to unspeakable brutalities to include insults, beatings, and lynchings (Williams, 1987).

During Reconstruction in the South, White supremacy had not been abolished. Jim Crow prevented Blacks from mixing with Whites socially, voting, and doing well financially. Jeffries (2009) describes the realities of the climate that existed in communities throughout the South by stating, “African Americans attended separate and unequal schools, lived in dilapidated and deteriorating housing, and toiled as overworked domestics and farm laborers. There were five thousand African Americans of voting age…not a single one was registered. Most were “too scared to try” (Jeffries, 2009).

After the Reconstruction-era, state government, White southerners, and legal machinations stymied Black’s efforts to access political powers afforded them by the United States Constitution. Black resistance to White supremacy in Southern states is well documented (Jeffries, 2009). While it may be argued

22

that Black resistance to oppression had its beginnings in the early insurrections of enslaved African Americans against their captors, the focus here is limited to Black resistance to the denial of voting rights in the Deep South. From 1955 through 1964, movement protests occurred throughout the South. These protests included the Montgomery Bus Boycott that ran from 1955 to 1956, Sit- Ins and Boycotts of 1960, the Freedom Rides of 1961, the March on Washington in 1963, and the Mississippi Freedom Summer of 1964 (Branch; 2013; Hudson, 1998; Lawson, 2005).

On February 18, 1965, Jimmie Lee Jackson, a 26-year-old African American male who was participating in a peaceful protest in Marion, Alabama was shot in the stomach at point blank range by Alabama State Trooper James Fowler. Mr. Jackson died from his injuries on February 26, 1965. Jackson’s death led to the march from Selma to Montgomery to demand that Governor George Wallace put an end to widespread violence being inflicted upon African Americans. The march to protest the death of Mr. Jackson and advance the struggle for voting rights was held on March 7, 1965 (Weisbrot, 1990; Galliard, 2004).

On the afternoon of Sunday, March 7, 1965, better known as Bloody Sunday, over 600 people convened to embark upon a journey from Selma to Montgomery. After a prayer, the diverse mass of protestors began their journey. As they approached the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they were met by dozens of “battle-ready” lawmen and several dozen more men armed with clubs and baseball bats. After declaring that the march was an unlawful assembly, Major Cloud, the state trooper in charge, ordered the marchers to disperse. After a failed attempt to negotiate with the trooper, the marchers were given two minutes to disperse. In his account of the events of that day, John Lewis (1998) writes, “We couldn’t go forward. We couldn’t go back…We passed the word back to begin bowing down in a prayerful manner…One minute after he had issued his warning, Major Cloud issued an order to his troopers.” The troopers and sheriffs violently beat, clubbed and gassed the unarmed marchers. The horror of that day was captured in graphic detail and by all accounts gripped the nation (Carson, 2005; Fager, 2005; Lewis, 1998).

The Voting Rights Act of 1965

Many historians view Bloody Sunday as the turning point in the voting rights struggle. The strongest evidence supporting this view is captured by the remarks of President Lyndon B. Johnson, as he addressed a joint session of Congress on

23

March 15, 1965, only eight days following the brutal assault on the marchers in Selma (Ianniello, 1965):

“At times history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning pointing man’s unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it was a century ago at Appomattox. So it was in Selma, Alabama…The bill that I am presenting to you tonight will be known as a civil rights bill…All Americans must have the right to vote. And we are going to give them that right. All Americans must have the privileges of citizenship regardless of race.”

On August 6, 1965, less than 6 months following his historic address to a joint session of Congress, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed The Voting Rights Act into law. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is described by the Department of Justice (2013) as being “among the most far-reaching pieces of legislation in U.S. history.” The VRA defeated existing barriers being levied at the state and local levels to prevent Blacks from exercising the constitutional right to vote under the 15th Amendment (Foster, 1985). The 1965 VRA is one of the most important civil rights laws in the history of the United States of America.

Within two years following the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, its impact was quite dramatic. Supported by the VRA, grassroots organizations and volunteers significantly increased the number of registered voters in the South. After the passage and enactment of the 1965 VRA, voter registration among Blacks in the Deep South increased by an average of 44% by 1988 (Grofman et al., 1992). Blacks only voted at 27.4% by 1965. This increased to 63.9% by 1988. In Alabama, Black voter participation by 1965 was 19.3% and increased to 68.4% by 1988 (Grofman et al., 1992). Voter turnout of Blacks in Georgia increased by 29.4% from 27.4% in 1965 to 56.8% in 1988 (Grofman et al., 1992). Blacks in Mississippi voted at a rate of 6.7% before the 1965 VRA; this increased to 74.2% by 1988 (Grofman et al., 1992). This major consequence of the VRA was particularly apparent in the state of Mississippi that, prior to the legislation, had the lowest rate of eligible Black voters. Within the two-year period following the passage of the VRA, Mississippi held the highest rate of registered Black voters in the country (Fager, 2005; Branch, 2013; Weisbrot, 1990). Figure 1.1 provides a depiction of the substantial impact of the 1965 VRA on Black and White voters.

24

Figure 1.1 “Voter Registration Rates (1965 vs. 1988) March 1965 November 1988

Black White Gap Black White Gap

Alabama 19.3 69.2 49.9 68.4 75.0 6.6

Georgia 27.4 62.6 35.2 56.8 63.9 7.1

Louisiana 31.6 80.5 48.9 77.1 75.1 -2.0

Mississippi 6.7 69.9 63.2 74.2 80.5 6.3

North Carolina 46.8 96.8 50.0 58.2 65.6 7.4

South Carolina 37.3 75.7 38.4 56.7 61.8 5.1

Virginia 38.3 61.1 22.8 63.8 68.5 4.7

Source: United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Voting Section, Adapted from Bernard Grofman, Lisa Handley and Richard G. Niemi. 1992. Minority Representations and the Quest for Voting Equality. New York: Cambridge University.

Today, the VRA continues to protect the rights of not only African American voters but also all Americans from various backgrounds. It is a central piece of legislation that supports the preservation of the right to vote as outlined in the 15th Amendment to the Constitution (ACLU, 2013). Despite the significance of the VRA as a landmark piece of civil rights legislation, it has been and continues to be challenged legally. Over the years, legal challenges to the VRA have mounted. According to VRA opponents, state and local governments have made such significant progress that they are no longer in need of federal oversight. Proponents of the VRA assert that initiatives such as voter ID laws in Indiana, South Carolina, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, and other states as well as widespread restricted early voting are evidence that voter suppression is a continuing reality.

Interestingly, this argument that state and local governments have made such progress that they are no longer in need of federal oversight was resoundingly reinforced by the Supreme Court in its June 25, 2013 ruling that struck down Section 4 of the VRA. Speaking for the majority regarding the Court’s 5-4 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts stated, “There is no denying,

25

however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions” (DOJ, 2013). “Justice Roberts further wrote, “…Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,” (DOJ, 2013). Speaking for the dissenting minority regarding the Court’s decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, “The Court today terminates the remedy that proved to be best suited to block that discrimination. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) has worked to combat voting discrimination where other remedies had been tried and failed. Particularly effective is the VRA’s requirement of federal preclearance for all changes to voting laws in the regions of the country with the most aggravated records of rank discrimination against minority voting rights” (DOJ, 2013). Justice Ginsburg underscored the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision, writing, “The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective…The Court appears to believe that the VRA’s success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that pre-clearance is no longer needed” (DOJ, 2013).

Section 4 of the 1965 VRA addressed three key provisions: (1) the coverage formula; (2) the preclearance requirement; and (3) the suspension of use of tests or devices. Section 4 (a) of the VRA or the coverage formula identified the state and local governments that would be subjected to the Act and to provide for more stringent remedies where appropriate (DOJ, 2013). Under Section 4 (b), preclearance required states in the formula to have federal approval prior to changing laws or procedures related to voting. The foremost concerns were with the suspension of a five-year "a test or device," that included the declaration of poll taxes, literacy tests, Grandfather clauses and numerous other forms of voter intimidation as being unconstitutional as a precondition before one is eligible to register to vote (Roberts-Lewis and Mack, 2015). Southern states that were mandated to follow pre-clearance measures set by the U.S. Department of Justice were located in the South and included: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia and 40 of the 100 counties in North Carolina (Roberts-Lewis and Mack, 2015). This specific “criteria was purposefully constructed to help assuage the racial discriminatory voting practices in states that subscribed to the” Deep South (Roberts-Lewis and Mack, 2015).

26

Conclusion

While the Supreme Court did not deem the 1965 VRA to be unconstitutional, it did find Section 4 of the Act unconstitutional causing the investigation of this fundamental civil rights legislation. The Supreme Court’s June 25, 2013 ruling pertaining to Section 4 of the VRA opened the door to a re- evaluation of the rights of all citizens’ equal access to participate in the electoral process. The ruling is predicted to result in a deterrence of voter participation of eligible voters, mainly minorities. It removes the legal protections against voter discrimination in states that have a long and strong history of voter discrimination through “tests and devices,” particularly in the Deep South. States like Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi are no longer held to the standards established by Section 4 of the 1965 VRA where they had to endure pre-clearance procedures carried out by the Department of Justice. As a result, these Southern states that have traditionally been against the participation of women and minorities in the franchise, may see a decline in voter participation among these groups. Historically, it has taken all legal vestige of the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to prevent and eradicate over 300 years of discrimination, the denial of basic and natural human rights, and most importantly, the right to vote for African Americans. It is strongly speculated based on past voter discrimination in the United States that this ruling set down from the U.S. Supreme Court will reduce the number of minorities participating in the franchise and increase the number of procedural deterrents to register and cast ballots in future elections, especially general elections in states who were mandated by Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to participate in the pre-clearance process.

In addition, Section 4 was effective in preventing and ending former forms of voter disenfranchisement such as literacy tests, poll taxes, all-White primaries, vote dilution through redistricting and gerrymandering, and other means of racially driven intimidation. On the other hand, newer forms of discrimination, i.e. photo identification requirements, day of voting registration restrictions, and immigration laws, prove a need to revamp and strengthen the current voting legislation to ensure equal access for all groups.

Supreme Court rulings of this nature favor Southern states like Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. These states have maintained a system of elitism and disenfranchisement through the ballot for centuries. It is also predicted “…after the elimination of Section 4, we are likely to witness a return to pre-VRA voter

27

suppression and disenfranchisement” (Roberts-Lewis & Mack, 2015). It will continue to do so if pre-clearance measures are not re-evaluated and actually carried out. “Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) was designed to create constitutional protections for disenfranchised populations by determining which states, based on past discriminatory practices, would be subject to approval of the federal government’s Department of Justice in making changes to voting procedures through a preclearance process” (Roberts-Lewis and Mack, 2015).

Unfortunately, elections administrators in Southern states have learned the loop-holes of voting and civil rights legislation and are using this knowledge to their advantage for partisan gain to deny access to the franchise of those they feel are not worthy of a political voice. Equal and fair elections are necessary for the right to vote in the United States to maintain democracy liberty, freedom, and self-expression (Ochs, 2006). The franchise is not equally protected or accessible for those in the minority in Southern states. Universal suffrage should be the greatest compelling governmental interest. When all citizens are allowed to freely and equally take part in the decision-making process, they acquire a vested interest in their communities and the greater good of society. This results in groups with strong community ties (Ochs, 2006). Lastly, voting creates a community of citizens invested in one another and this benefits the majority as well as the minority (Ochs, 2006).

Many, including the current U.S. Supreme Court, believe that we are in a “post-racial” state as a result of Barack Obama being elected as the first Black President of the United States of America for two terms. This view assumes that in the Obama era, racial discrimination in America has ended. As long as racial discrimination in voting still occurs especially in the South, Section 4 of the 1965 VRA…remains critical to ensuring equal access to the franchise for all citizens. For many African Americans, the VRA is symbolic of the protections of “sacred rights” as American citizens. It solidifies access to the ballot without bias, prejudice or discrimination. Years of blood and tears were shed to acquire and constitutionalize these “scared rights” by those who were beaten, hosed, lynched, bombed, chased by dogs, intimidated, humiliated, and killed. Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision concerning Section 4 of the VRA has increased the distaste and distrust that many African Americans have not only for the American legal system but also for the U.S. Constitution. Like Fannie Lou Hammer in 1964, many are “sick and tired of being sick and tired” (Demuth, 1964).

Clearly, as a society, America has evolved. Slavery, Jim Crow, and Bloody

Sunday are all vestiges of the past. While the VRA will be forever a crowning

28

achievenment in the struggle for full benefits of citizenship, the struggle for equal access to the vote continues. After the passage and enactment of the 1965 VRA, voter registration among African Americans in the Deep South increased drastically. This clearly demonstrates the value of previous federal voting legislation on voter participation by this social group.

In his speech delivered at the “Let Freedom Ring” Ceremony to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington on August 28, 2013, at the Lincoln Memorial, President Obama suggested that we take lessons from the named and unnamed Americans, who resisted oppression and fought against injustice by stating,

“…Because they marched, the civil rights law was passed. Because they marched, the voting rights law was signed. Because they marched, doors of opportunity and education swung open so their daughters and sons could finally imagine a life for themselves beyond washing somebody else's laundry or shining somebody else's shoes. Because they marched, city councils changed and state legislatures changed and Congress changed and, yes, eventually the White House changed. Because they marched, America became more free and more fair, not just for African- Americans but for women and Latinos, Asians and Native Americans, for Catholics, Jews and Muslims, for gays, for Americans with disabilities. America changed for you and for me. They marched. Yes, they marched on the Edmond Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday.” (Obama, 2013)

And so, we must continue to march.

29

References

American Civil Liberties Union (n.d.). The Voting Rights Act: Protecting minority voting Rights. Retrieved February 27, 2013, from http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/voting-rights-act-0.

Associated Press (1999). “Efforts to Recognize Black Confederates Encounter

Flak,” Los Angeles Times. Retrieved on June 14, 2016, from http://articles.latimes.com/1999/feb/27/news/mn-12307

Branch, T. (2013). The King Years: Historic moments in the civil rights movement. NY:

Simon & Schuster. Carson, C. (2005). The crucible: How bloody Sunday at the Edmund Pettus Bridge

changed everything. In Editors of Black Issues in Higher Education (Eds.), The unfinished agenda of the Selma-Montgomery Voting Rights March.

Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp, 27-36. Department of Justice (DOJ) (2013). The Voting Rights Act of 1965. Retrieved on

February 25, 2013, from http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/intro/intro_b.php

Demuth, J. (1964). “Summer in Mississippi: Freedom Moves in to Stay,” The

Nation, September, 14, pp. 104-110. Fager, C. (2005). Selma 1965: The March that changed the south. 40th Anniversary

Edition. Fayetteville: Kimo Press. Foster, L. (1985). The Voting Rights Act: Consequences and implications. Westport

CT: Praeger Publishers, 1985.

Gaillard, F. (2004). Cradle of freedom: Alabama and the movement that changed

America. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Grofman, B., Handley, L. & Niemi, R. G. (1992). Minority Representations and the Quest for Voting Equality. New York: Cambridge University

Hudson, D. (1998). Along racial lines: Consequences of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

30

Ianniello, L. (Ed.) (1965). Milestones along the march: Twelve historic civil rights documents from World War I to Selma. NY: Prager Publishers.

Jeffries, H. (2009). Bloody Lowndes: Civil rights and Black power in Alabama’s Black

Belt. NY: New York University Press. Lawson, S. (2005). Civil rights crossroads: Nation, community and the black freedom

struggle. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky. Lewis, J. (1998). Walking with the wind: A memoir of the movement. San Diego:

Harcourt Brace & Company. Obama, B. (2013). Speech delivered at the “Let Freedom Ring” Ceremony to

commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington. August 28, 2013, Lincoln Memorial, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/28/remarks-president- let- freedom-ring-ceremony-commemorating-50th-anniversary

Ochs, H. L. (2006). The Policy Studies Journal, 34 (1), pp. 81- 93. Packard, J. (2001). American nightmare: The history of Jim Crow. NY: St. Martin's

Press. Roberts-Lewis, K., & Mack, L. (2015). “The Winding Journey to Justice: An

Analysis of the Voting Rights Act on Disenfranchised Populations and Its Impact in the State of Georgia,” Ralph Bunche Journal of Public Affairs. Vol. 4: Iss. 1, Article 2.

Shelby County, Alabama V. Holder, Attorney, Et Al, Us 570, Supreme Court of

the United States, 2013 (No. 12–96. Argued February 27, 2013—Decided June 25, 2013)

United States Constitution (1870). Weisbrot, R. (1990). Freedom bound: A history of America’s civil rights movement. NY:

Norton & Company. Williams, J. (1987). Eyes on the prize: America’s civil rights years 1954-1965. NY:

Penguin Books.

31

Dr. LaKerri R. Mack is an Assistant Professor at Troy University in Troy, Alabama teaching Political Science and Master of Public Administration courses with the degrees from Vanderbilt and Auburn Universities. She has served as Faculty Advisor for the M.I.S.S. Elite Society (aimed at empowering African- American women) and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). She also served multiple communities in Alabama as the Board President for the Boys and Girls Club of Pike and Surrounding Counties and the Youth Director for the New Hope Brothers and Sisters Benevolent Society. Her research interests include Election Administration and Public Policy, Black Political and Feminist Thought, Women’s Political Leadership, Minority Education Policy, Mentoring, and Leadership within Non-profit Organizations. Dr. Tonya E. Perry-Mitchell is a Professor of Social Work at Alabama A & M University, where she teaches in the Graduate Social Work Program. Having formerly taught at Fordham University and Howard University, Dr. Perry-Mitchell has more than 16 years of graduate teaching experience. Dr. Perry-Mitchell earned her Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Social Work from the University of Alabama where she also completed a minor in community health. She holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Psychology from Edinboro University of Pennsylvania and a Master of Social Work Degree from Tulane University. Dr. Perry-Mitchell has lived and traveled extensively throughout the African continent. A former Johns Hopkins International AIDS Research Fellow, Dr. Perry-Mitchell is a seasoned international researcher who has extensively investigated the socio- cultural aspects of HIV/AIDS among women of African ancestry throughout Africa and the African Diaspora. Dr. Perry-Mitchell’s research, publications and related interests revolve around women’s health, particularly socio-cultural issues related to the impact of HIV/AIDS and other varied health conditions on women of African ancestry and the impact of development upon the status of women. Dr. Perry-Mitchell’s latest work includes 2 co-edited books, Globalization and Gender Oppression: A Challenge for Social Work, published in 2013 by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE); and What the Village Gave Me: Conceptualizations of Womanhood published in 2014 by University Press of America. Dr. Perry-Mitchell currently serves on the editorial board of Social Work, the journal of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and is a reviewer for Affila: The Journal of Women and Social Work and The Journal of HIV/AIDS & Social Services. Dr. Perry-Mitchell also serves as a consulting editor for Journal of Social Work Education (JSWE).

32

Dr. Kaye Thompson-Rogers has been employed with North Carolina Central University (NCCU) in Durham, North Carolina since 1996. She works in the College of Arts and Sciences where she is the Director of the Health Careers Center and the North Carolina-Health Careers Access Program (NC-HCAP). In this position, she is also the University’s Pre-Health Advisor and Advisor for the health professions student organization (ex: Pre-Medicine Society, Pre-Dental Society, etc.). Kaye is responsible for assisting students that are interested in the healthcare profession receive internships related to their future career interests, shadowing, and professional development opportunities. She is also a member of numerous university committees and professional organizations. She is currently President of Sisters of the Academy Institute and has been a member since 2003. Her research interests are Black Women in Academia, Black Women and Beauty, African American Women and Barriers in Academics, and Mentoring African American Children. Dr. Thompson-Rogers’ publications include the 2011 collaboration in “The Negro Educational Review” titled, “Academia as Extreme Sport: Black Women, Faculty Development, and Networking;” a chapter titled, “Black Women Leadership in the Church,” which is featured in the book, “Black Women Leadership: Their Historical and Contemporary Contributions;” and a book titled, “Early College High Schools in North Carolina: A Multi-Site Case Study.” Kaye received her Bachelors in Business Administration at Averett University, Masters of Arts in Education Technology and a Masters of Public Administration at North Carolina Central University, and a PhD in Urban Higher Education at Jackson State University. In her spare time, she enjoys spending time with her granddaughter, traveling, reading, and making baskets.

Dr. Devona F. Pierre serves as the Assistant Director of Faculty & Staff Diversity Initiatives in the Office of Diversity, Inclusion & Equal Opportunity at the University of South Florida. She has taught courses in higher education administration as well as worked as an administrator in higher education. Dr. Pierre previously served as the Coordinator for Office Operations for Sisters of the Academy Institute (SOTA) at Auburn University, where she earned her Doctorate and Master degrees. She is also a proud graduate of Dillard University in New Orleans, Louisiana. Devona possesses a passion for exploring the recruitment, retention, persistence, and advancement of minorities and marginalized populations in post-secondary institutions.

Copyright of Making Connections: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Cultural Diversity is the property of Making Connections and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.