The National Constitution center is the only institution in america chartered by congresr to increase awareness and understanding of the u. S. Constitution among the American People on a nonpartisan basis. That is a wonderful representation and before we begin, i want to provide quick for the next couple august 4, please join us for the annual Supreme Court review would be Antidefamation LeagueFrederick Lorenz and it will be a wonderful discussion of the important pieces of th cases ofm inferencing must tell you what a great pleasure on august 2 26th house circumstances permitting will open up our new exhibit how women won the vote about the 19th amendment as it is relevant to todays topic that examine exhibit about the history of the expansion of womens suffrage at workteam is hard glimmering behind me on the backdrop of. Throughout the program please put your questions in a box and they will introduce them as sooe as possible. Now it is my great pleasure to introduce our phenomenal taste. Matthew sterling professor of history, social policy at the john f. Kennedy school of government at harvard and the author of many books including the right to vote, the contested history of democracy which was a finalist for the Los Angeles Times book prize and the book coming out in just ten days, why do we still have the Electoral College. For the Academic Affairs and professor of law Southern California her forthcoming book is rethinking the constitutional structure of the political right, l the evolution of the federal Voting Rights enforcement. From defending the dawn of the progressive era. And Derek Mueller is professor of law at iowa college of law. He has published widely and before joining the university of iowa, he was a professor of law at Aberdeen University school of law. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Let us begin and please consider getting it because it is a bit of history and i hope that they will be inspired to read it after todays discussion. In thisin important book, you argue the right to vote thousand and eight steady bending to justice for universal suffrage. Instead its been a bumpy ride and you know that its a similar cases with the reversal of the right to vote. There is or there used to be a history that was much more comforting of the right to vote. Yes when the nation was founded the suffrage rights were white meal Property Owners but onward and upward ever since but what i found during research it is precisely what you described and what seems to happen is each advance our most advances are followed by a conflict with the actual exercise of the expanded franchise. You mentioned several in the early 19th century between 1810 and 1850 property requirements are in most states. The nono property requirements all from the same Constitutional Convention that instituted other requirements such as prohibition as being defined anybody that is dependent. So those same conventions that illuminated property requirements disenfranchised those from earlier. After thee civil war and we find these remarkable quotes from these figures in 18 seventies saying if we had known there would be all these poor immigrants flocking into the country we never would have change property requirements. Its very hard to reinstitute a property requirement are to have gotten rid of it but instead they create procedural obstacles for those who are voting. They wanted to be a little shorthanded but they switch to Voter Suppression instead of disenfranchisement. Thehe largest story is that africanamericans who are technically enfranchised of the 15th amendment to the constitution after the civil war are removed wholesale in the south by 1900. And that pattern continues small and large. Just around the south i would say the kinds of restrictions on and the obstacles created for the right to vote going on this year in the last 20 years in a key respect are a reaction against. [inaudible] so i think this pattern continues. We have to recognize that not all of the American Population has been happy of the expansion of the franchise. Thank you for that powerful dissertation it is meaningful to learn it is to restrict the franchise by imposing voter id requirements or for friday and in this. You identify in particular 1850 past world war i it was not only on the basis of race but new property requirements and it is deeply meaningful. So i cant wait to read yourri newf book which is coming out soon we thinking that structure so tell us of the thesis of that book into what degree to talk about from the mid 19th century to the progressive era and to be driven by the withdrawal of Voting Rights. I think thats that she was a little too modest of his book pretty much he works in thisis area. My book looks like the same issue from a differentnk perspective i think alex has done a wonderful job showing how the right to vote has expanded and contraction but in reading his work it raises a question because a lot of this was happening at the state level. Reconstruction is a time to become involved to regulate the right to vote and to be more aggressive of enfranchisement of the slave population. One thing that came to mind for me is what about that. I th . R reconstruction the assumption is congress didntt do much without the veright to vote was state law basis instead of just focusing solely on the 14th and 15th amendment. That. Nk you so much for to read your work and pointing attention for what you just described the structural guarantees as well as the aspects to teach us historically they have been relied on and with those articles you argue they could provide a Solid Foundation to protect Voting Rights today. I want to ask you more specifically but for those who are watching the time and to talk about article one section five that says that returns qualifications of its own members and the guarantee of a republican form of government that has a provision in section two to say if any state denies thert franchise they will be representation in congress. But in your important work you argue deference to the states when it comes to elections and that the constitution doesnt create a federal right to vote and you say that diversity is appropriate and should be deferred bysa the courts and your reaction. It is a fascinating structure of federalism. Sometimes we think of it as the negative whether the state or federal government is somebody is not acting appropriately or using authority in the right way there are plenty of times we can point to that but as a default studying is the states will run them the states can choose the qualifications of eligible voters and that there is a place of the constitution that we establish the right to vote for citizens they have to be the same as right to vote for the Largest Chamber to create a floor. And the White Property emails and it has broadeneds since then. So that structure sets it up in an interesting way and presumes a couple ofs in things but if we want to expand the qualifications of thee electorate the presumption is thats what happens with the 15h amendment to say essentially we think the free man has the right to vote so we will pass the 15th amendment to ensure it will not be deprived and then with the 19th amendment and womens suffrage its a different story because the states start the movement to enfranchise women out west so the motive to have women move out west ast an opportunity for them to participate in elections. The Womens Suffrage Movement 100 years this year but thats of the 19th amendment it was happening much earlier and even today when wewe talk about noncitizens if they should vote it points early in the history of the United States had federal law that prohibits me from doing so there are questions about the constitutionality but a lot of states have localities in School Board Elections to do experiments. And think about what the right to vote means with a have been denied the right to vote and we passed the amendment to authoritythere is for the federal government to intervene but its an interesting story to define the right to vote and who should participate in our politicall system. Thank you for that and reminding us of this complicated relationship between the federal government and the states which we will revisit throughout the conversation in the chat box can you please take a moment or two to reflect on john lewis. Thank you so much for reminding me what i meant to do at the beginning of the program but is deeply meaningful to pies to recognize the role of representative lewis one of the great constitution all heroes some of the most important figures to the expansion Voting Rights. To award the liberty met all to representative lewis and was so inspiring to inspire a nonviolent protest on the bridge that helped theng enactment and the shining example of his constitutional vision will live with all of years. Many take a moment for all of us to recognize and celebrate his memory. With that in mind with his achievements in passing the Voting Rights act of 65, how does that transform the nation in america . And describe the period from 1865 through the president and still not steady secure . The place i would like to start is to point to the subtitle and it is an act to enforce the 15th amendment of the u. S. Constitution and enforce the constitutional provision. And what led to that was activism and also a conclusion by congress by many other participants the Southern States by themselves would not reform themselves with the 15th amendment which is the darker side with the autonomy of the states in some areas even though constitutionally they are required to register the enfranchised americans so years of activism and it continues doesnt do it in itself is still very slow to get people registered but it was truly transformative voting patterns in the south the entire economically critical independent class of people had no rights and that is an enormous shift and barack obama would he have been elected president . Know. Just the sheer numbers so this is a transformation and is often the case in american histor history, the issues that deal with race to link to those analogous issue and that happens within a few years after the Voting Rights act that there is a whole large package franchise extensions that have been and then they extend fund extend the language and then again with largescale immigration so to summarize this more succinctly this has been a dramatic expansion of voting rates and followed by reaction which john lewis recognized and saw going on. By that point he is in congress and he fights against it after the Court Decides of the Voting Rights act and to restore them and he sees the arc of what washaha happening ad the victories he and his colleagues were involved with those were being reversed and then had to start fighting again. And he had a deep understanding that Voting Rights is not something you just achieve at a given moment and dont have to protect thereafter. Host talk about the Voting Rights act and the backlash against it. And representative lewis his heroic efforts to respond politically. Like to ask you about the judicial response with the Shelby County decision in the questionandanswer. For my understanding they said the main issue was a lack of updating with a simple reauthorization from congress would be enough. And then i was so struck through your series of articles that might be invoked to protect Voting Rights so tell us about those provisions. Okay. Trying to figure out where to start. [laughter] so actually want to piggyback on the john lewis, question. And what needs to be done. And one of the youngest speakers on the march in washington and the fact he continued to serve and then to protect Voting Rights. And then there wasa disenfranchisement and what john lewis wasth fighting for and why he continued to fight is the Shelby County decision did not come out of the blue it didnt just happen in 2013 a 2009 decision where the Supreme Court warned us and indicated it was a problem. But to some extent come im not trying to say here and criticize congress, yes i am. They did have the chance to update it and they did not so with that reauthorization we knew that would be a problem. It wasnt as if they couldnt updated they did a pretty good job to capture the problem because after Shelby Countyin decided mississippi and alabama and they all took stepsfr to suppress the vote. It wasnt Rocket Science but the understanding of what they do. So yes, it was a problem. They were coming from a baseline that states traditionally regulate our elections. Such a baseline the federal powers seems exceptional to justify any acts that intrude on the power of the state. A lot tries to challenge the narrative. Absolutely right the constitution is not explicit but a lot of this happens with the court to come in to read the 14th amendment with the equalno protection clause what they create they can take away thats why its important to rely on the text instead of thet court. But because they take the lead around the right to vote if we are trying to reauthorize the Voting Rights act how do we do so and its very difficult. But they want to return to the world where the states take a lead. Its a bit of sticking your head in the sand and to ignore the fact there is discrimination in voting and race bleeds over to a lot of other things and to be heavily intertwined in our system so there is a partisan incentive to disenfranchise. Its very difficult to think what is consistent with the court is looking for in Shelby County unless you look beyond the 14 the 15th amendment. Congress to intervene when there is a problem. One of the arguments i made around the Shelby Countyy iodecision is also authority and if youou look at congressional power in the aggregate and also make its own regulation and also in conjunction with the 14th and 15th amendment thats a more broader scope. But let me explain the Practical Implications and then ill stop but a vicious the 14th and 15th amendment and with that discrimination when they look at the legislative record with that reauthorization the chief justice is clear is not the same pattern that existed in 1965 at the time they reauthorize the Voting Rights act. It doesnt require a pattern from the nations of even if the court still looks for the legislative record it gives congress more room to legislate because they have additional provisions to rely on that dont require the same level of discrimination of the h amendment. That makes a real difference protecting the right to vote. Thank you for that and its an important argument the election a clause could be broader protection and i urge viewers to read and learn from your other articles other provisions of the constitution including section two of the 14h amendment that could protect against disenfranchisement there are a lot of phenomenal questions from the audience with the reintroduction of the Voting Rights act this week with 46 cosponsors and what he fought for throughout his life what are the chances it could pass in the senate leading to thely question is it truly a partisande issue and then i do want the audience to hear the argumentse on behalf of the Shelby County case why do you think the court was correct and what if anything could the states do with those protection protections . Thats a lot to get to so with john lewis if the audience has not seen the video footage of march 65 where he is at the front of the line in a peaceful march watching the state troopers firing tear gas and beating him its a miracle he is alive much less what it means to stand up and think about Voting Rights in a very different era. The Voting Rights act of 1965 did incredible tremendous work. It took a lot of effort from congress in march, death, beatings to get the attention and there are several real problems in this country so that went to a very long way to franchise tremendous numbers of africanamerican voters previously disenfranchised and to be active in ways they hadnt for 100 years. It is congressional will so with congresses motivation its something to figure out partisan in nature or more sinister talk about the relationship between race and party there was the Democratic Party essentially so a lot of the65 fights about white and black voters were feuds that has shifted in the sense we now have a lot of polarization thats changed a lot of the dynamics and how we view the relationship with the right to vote. At the Voting Rights act some provisions change Things Congress said that while the Supreme Court has said literacy test our constitutional a we think there is a pretty good chance they are not being fairly administered but designed to suppress black voters. So Congress Steps up to the plate to make these decisions the Voting Rights advancement act tries