Voting, Elections & Districting

You’ll be able to

Explain constitutional amendments and laws that expanded voting rights
Analyze factors that affect voter turnout
Apply Baker v. Carr and Shaw v. Reno to redistricting and representation

Expanding the franchise

The right to vote expanded through a series of amendments and laws. The Fifteenth Amendment barred denying the vote based on race, the Nineteenth extended it to women, the Twenty-Fourth abolished the poll tax in federal elections, and the Twenty-Sixth lowered the voting age to 18. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 put federal enforcement behind these guarantees, banning literacy tests and other barriers. Together they moved the country toward near-universal adult suffrage, though debates over access — voter ID laws, registration rules, early voting — continue today.

Why people do (and don’t) vote

Turnout varies with both individual traits and rules. Higher education, income, and age all predict higher turnout, as does strong party identification and political efficacy (the belief that one’s vote matters). Structural factors matter too: registration requirements, the timing of elections (weekday voting), and the type of election — turnout is far higher in presidential years than in midterm or local elections. Because participation is uneven, the electorate that actually votes may not perfectly mirror the whole population.

Drawing the lines: apportionment and gerrymandering

Every ten years, House seats are reapportioned and districts redrawn. Two required cases govern this. In Baker v. Carr (1962), the Court ruled that redistricting is a justiciable question courts can hear, opening the door to the "one person, one vote" principle that districts must be roughly equal in population. In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court held that a bizarrely shaped district drawn primarily on the basis of race could be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander subject to strict scrutiny. Gerrymandering — drawing lines for partisan or racial advantage — remains a central controversy in representation.

Worked example

A state legislature draws a congressional district that snakes across the state, connecting distant communities, and the evidence shows race was the predominant factor in its shape. Using Baker v. Carr and Shaw v. Reno, explain whether courts can review this and how they would likely evaluate it.

1.Apply Baker v. Carr: redistricting is a justiciable issue, so a federal court can hear a challenge to how the district was drawn rather than treating it as a purely political question.
2.Identify the constitutional concern: a district drawn predominantly on the basis of race raises an equal-protection problem.
3.Apply Shaw v. Reno: when race is the predominant factor in drawing a district, the map is subject to strict scrutiny and may be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
4.Reach a conclusion: the court can review the map (Baker) and would likely strike it down unless the state shows a compelling justification narrowly tailored to it (Shaw).

Answer: Under Baker v. Carr the court can hear the case because redistricting is justiciable, and under Shaw v. Reno a district in which race was the predominant factor faces strict scrutiny as a possible racial gerrymander. The map is likely unconstitutional unless the state can meet that demanding standard.

Checkpoint

What was the central significance of Baker v. Carr (1962)?

On the exam

Pair the districting cases: Baker v. Carr opened the courthouse door (justiciability → one person, one vote), and Shaw v. Reno limited racial gerrymandering (strict scrutiny). Prompts often ask you to distinguish which case did which — keep them separate.

Checkpoint

Which of the following individuals is, all else equal, most likely to vote in a given election?

Tip

Memorize the four suffrage amendments by group: 15th (race), 19th (women), 24th (poll tax), 26th (age 18). If a prompt names an expansion of voting rights, one of these four is usually the answer.

Answer the 2 checkpoints as you read.