Which statement about the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is accurate?

Which statement about the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is accurate?

• A. It ends federal oversight of elections.
• B. It prohibits racial discrimination in voting and established federal oversight and preclearance to protect minority voting rights.
• C. It bans poll taxes nationwide.
• D. It expands voting rights protections beyond the federal government.

Answer: (B)

The key idea here is how the Voting Rights Act of 1965 strengthens protection against racial discrimination in voting by bringing federal oversight into the process. It prohibits denying or abridging the right to vote on the basis of race and sets up powerful enforcement tools, notably federal review of changes to voting procedures in jurisdictions with a history of discrimination. A central mechanism is preclearance, where certain states and localities must obtain approval from the Justice Department or a federal court before changing voting laws, to ensure those changes don’t harm minority voters. This combination of a nationwide prohibition plus federal enforcement was designed to counteract state practices that had kept minority citizens from exercising their right to vote. The other statements don’t fit as well. The act did not end federal oversight; it expanded it. It did not ban poll taxes nationwide—the poll tax ban is associated with the 24th Amendment and subsequent court decisions. And it isn’t about extending protections beyond the federal framework; it strengthens federal role in enforcing fair voting access.

The key idea here is how the Voting Rights Act of 1965 strengthens protection against racial discrimination in voting by bringing federal oversight into the process. It prohibits denying or abridging the right to vote on the basis of race and sets up powerful enforcement tools, notably federal review of changes to voting procedures in jurisdictions with a history of discrimination.

A central mechanism is preclearance, where certain states and localities must obtain approval from the Justice Department or a federal court before changing voting laws, to ensure those changes don’t harm minority voters. This combination of a nationwide prohibition plus federal enforcement was designed to counteract state practices that had kept minority citizens from exercising their right to vote.

The other statements don’t fit as well. The act did not end federal oversight; it expanded it. It did not ban poll taxes nationwide—the poll tax ban is associated with the 24th Amendment and subsequent court decisions. And it isn’t about extending protections beyond the federal framework; it strengthens federal role in enforcing fair voting access.