Beyond dreams

MLK’s legacy in securing voting equality

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s indelible legacy in championing civil rights and the Voting Rights Act stands starkly relevant today amid the battle against voter suppression, vividly mirrored in the unfolding Texas landscape, according to a UTRGV associate professor. 

“Many are attempting to erode progress that was made in the context of voting rights,” Natasha Altema-McNeely, an associate professor of political science, told The Rider in an interview. “So, it’s really important to keep a lot of Dr. King’s philosophy alive today. It’s important to continue to fight.” 

Though many, like sociology senior Nayelly Hinojosa, choose to forfeit their vote.

 “As much hate as I will probably get for this, I most likely won’t be voting this year,” Hinojosa told The Rider.

She said her family never voted in the past, so she has never seen it as a priority but is open to one day casting her ballot.

Each year on the third Monday in January, King is honored during the MLK Day of Service, inspiring volunteerism, unity and community action for social justice and equality. The American Association of State Colleges and Universities consider it “a day on, not a day off.” 

King’s advocacy helped President Lyndon B. Johnson identify the urgency and necessity of passing laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, McNeely said.

“One of the main contributions of the VRA was to strengthen some of the weaknesses of the CRA,” she said. “… Namely, although the CRA tried to reinforce racial minority groups’ right to vote, it didn’t provide the federal government with enough tools to enforce it.”

An extension to the Voting Rights Act of 1975 that is especially relevant to the Rio Grande Valley, McNeely said, was the requirement of “ballots to be issued not only in English, but also the primary language of the population that lived in that area.”

The associate professor said the Shelby County v. Holder lawsuit in 2013 dismantled crucial sections of the Voting Rights Act, eliminating federal oversight on states’ voting protections.

 “Whenever a state wants to, especially states with a history of racial discrimination, change their election laws, they don’t have to get the pre-clearance from the Department of Justice,” McNeely said.

Leaving the door open for voter suppression tactics that McNeely explained refers to deliberate efforts that hinder or limit individuals’ ability to vote, often through discriminatory laws, intimidation or restrictive policies.

Pre-Voting Rights Act tactics involved literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation and other discriminatory measures to disenfranchise minority voters systematically, according to McNeely.

“With Dr. King’s efforts, and his supporters’ efforts, many of those repression tools were outlawed,” she said. “However, over the years, and in our lifetime, what we are seeing are different efforts that are being used to suppress certain groups.”

 These contemporary tactics encompass strict ID laws, reduced polling stations, and limited voting hours.  This is done mostly in racially diverse communities and lower-income areas. 

“All of that is to say that voter suppression … looks very different [today], but the end goal remains the same,” McNeely said.

The Rider asked the associate professor what has concerned her the most in terms of voting rights over the years.

“Listening to discussions about successful voter reform laws that are more suppressive in nature, and talks about pieces of legislation that would have the same purpose, that create different tools for voter suppression, is where my concern lies,” McNeely said.

Texas’ Senate Bill 1 in 2021 is one example that includes components that suppress the vote. 

SB 1 imposes new regulations on voting procedures, including identification requirements for mail-in ballots and limits on early voting hours, measures taken to prevent voter fraud.

“Opponents of the law argue it restricts opportunities for voters of color to vote,” McNeely said. “2024 is an important election year; therefore, it is very important for everyone in Texas to learn about the law and understand what is allowed and what is not allowed in the context of voting.”

La Unión del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott lawsuit in 2023 challenged SB 1, arguing that it was in violation of the Voting Rights Act. 

In a news release, LUPE said the U.S. Department of Justice agreed and acknowledged that SB 1 unlawfully restricts the ability for eligible Texas voters to vote by mail and to have their vote counted. 

“The right to vote is a fundamental right, a right that should be protected without infringement,” Tania Chavez Camacho, president and executive director of LUPE, was quoted as saying in the news release.

In an email to The Rider last Thursday, Michael Mireles, LUPE’s director of Civic Engagement, said the trial ended in October 2023 and “closing arguments will be heard Feb. 13. … After, [U.S District Judge Xavier Rodriguez] will release a written ruling on the case.” 

 The Rider asked McNeely what is the best way to combat voter suppression. 

“The best tool is to become informed … about candidates who are running for elections, not just at the national and federal level, but also the state and local level,” she replied.

The associate professor said selecting a candidate aligned with one’s values ensures policies and decisions resonate with one’s principles, shaping a governance more reflective of one’s beliefs.

“While you’re watching efforts to remove people’s ability to vote, you’re also seeing efforts to fight,” McNeely said. “… And I think that is also important to Dr. King’s legacy, because even though some of the outcomes of his efforts have been eroded, people still embrace his commitment to fighting and finding ways to help bring people to the ballot.”