Goals & Objectives
Goal: Understand how the courts continue to play a major role in civil rights laws
Objective: Students will analyze and debate the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision striking down Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Objective: Students will analyze and debate the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision striking down Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
California State Content Standards
11.10. 6. Analyze the passage and effects of civil rights and voting rights legislation (e.g., 1964 Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act of 1965) and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, with an emphasis on equality of access to education and to the political process.
Common Core Literacy Standards
CCSS.SL.3 Evaluate a speaker’s point of view, reasoning, and use of evidence and rhetoric, assessing the stance, premises, links among ideas, word choice, points of emphasis, and tone used.
CCSS.SL.6 Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and tasks, demonstrating a command of formal English when indicated or appropriate.
CCSS.SL.6 Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and tasks, demonstrating a command of formal English when indicated or appropriate.
Driving Historical Question
Was the Supreme Court right or wrong to overturn parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in 2013?
Lesson Introduction (Anticipatory Set/Hook/Accessing Prior Knowledge) ‖ Time: 7 Min.
I will remind the students of the importance of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Next, I will start off the lesson with a brief overview of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision that struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. That’s the portion that required a formula to determine which states needed federal oversight when considering election changes. I will explain why Section 4 was passed by Congress and why the court thought it no longer reflected modern day voting conditions. I will tie this development to the implementation of the Voting Rights Act 50 years ago. I will keep the students engaged by playing the CBS News Special Report that aired just after the 2013 decision was announced.
Vocabulary (Content Language Development) ‖ Time: Throughout lesson
I will provide a list of key terms that students should monitor during the discussion:
- Pre-clearance
- Voting Rights Act Section 4
- Voting Rights Act Section 5
- Oversight
Content Delivery (Method of Instruction) ‖ Time: 15 Min.
After viewing the CBS News video about the 2013 court decision Shelby County v. Holder, students and the teacher will read the CNN news story that covers the divergent opinions in that case. The students will silently read along as the teacher reads the story to the class. Students will be encouraged to highlight key arguments and vocabulary words. Before beginning the reading, the teacher will tell the students that they will be engaging in a debate about this issue so they need to understand both sides. I will also remind the students that the 2013 decision directly impacts the 1965 Voting Rights Act, so this is an example of history that is still very alive today.
After reading the article, the students will engage in a quick Q&A with the teacher that covers the key issues in Shelby County v. Holder. Because this issue is both controversial and a bit technical, it’s important that the students understand Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act (the core of the legal case). The teacher will use the Q&A to explain how Section 4 created a formula for determining which states are subject to additional requirements because those states previously used techniques to disenfranchise minority voting. And the teacher will explain how Section 5 used the formula from Section 4 to specify which states or counties must receive “pre-clearance” from the federal government when seeking to make changes to voting rules. The teacher will explain why the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Section 4 made Section 5 unenforceable – unless Congress amends the Voting Rights Act in the future.
Finally, the teacher will ask the students to analyze the key points made by both sides. Has the Deep South changed enough over the past 50 years that the federal government no longer needs to approve voting rules? Or, are modern-day voting requirements (such as photo I.D. requirements) designed to disenfranchise poor people – and African Americans – who are less likely to have a photo I.D.? Students will be asked to review their highlighted sections and come to a conclusion – even if it’s not a hard-and-fast opinion.
After reading the article, the students will engage in a quick Q&A with the teacher that covers the key issues in Shelby County v. Holder. Because this issue is both controversial and a bit technical, it’s important that the students understand Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act (the core of the legal case). The teacher will use the Q&A to explain how Section 4 created a formula for determining which states are subject to additional requirements because those states previously used techniques to disenfranchise minority voting. And the teacher will explain how Section 5 used the formula from Section 4 to specify which states or counties must receive “pre-clearance” from the federal government when seeking to make changes to voting rules. The teacher will explain why the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Section 4 made Section 5 unenforceable – unless Congress amends the Voting Rights Act in the future.
Finally, the teacher will ask the students to analyze the key points made by both sides. Has the Deep South changed enough over the past 50 years that the federal government no longer needs to approve voting rules? Or, are modern-day voting requirements (such as photo I.D. requirements) designed to disenfranchise poor people – and African Americans – who are less likely to have a photo I.D.? Students will be asked to review their highlighted sections and come to a conclusion – even if it’s not a hard-and-fast opinion.
Student Engagement (Critical Thinking & Student Activities) ‖ Time: 25 Min.
Students will be informed that they are taking part in a pretend “TV Chat Show Panel Discussion” featuring both sides of Shelby County v. Holder. The class will be reminded that this is an exercise in critical thinking, and both sides need to be treated with respect. Students will be divided equally and sent into two groups on either side of the room. This will be at random, and all students will be told to set their personal feeling aside while taking place in a mock “Chat Show”. Both groups will be analyzing the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder. However, one side will argue for the court’s majority decision (striking down Section 4) and the other group will take the side of the court’s minority (defending Section 4). Next, the two student groups will hold group conferences to discuss the issues at stake in Shelby County v. Holder and decide which aspects of the case they find the most compelling. The groups will refer to the article as they analyze the position that best represents their group.
Next, the groups will nominate a representative that will act as their spokesperson on a “TV Chat Show Panel Discussion”. The groups should select a student who can understand and synthesize their main points while constructing a convincing argument. Each representative will then take the “stage” at the front of the class on either side of the teacher who will be acting as “host”. The rest of the class remains in their seats and acts as audience members. Next, the host will ask each representative to present their group’s position to the class. Each representative should base their positions on evidence they took from the text provided. The representatives will present brief but complete remarks.
Finally, the students in the audience will ask the representatives questions about their positions. Students should ask questions based on the information they reviewed at the beginning of class. The representatives will have a chance to answer the questions and issue rebuttals to the other representative. Once the discussion is underway, students will be able to question other students. This will allow the entire class to engage in critical thinking as each student deals with these real-life issues and builds off of earlier comments.
Next, the groups will nominate a representative that will act as their spokesperson on a “TV Chat Show Panel Discussion”. The groups should select a student who can understand and synthesize their main points while constructing a convincing argument. Each representative will then take the “stage” at the front of the class on either side of the teacher who will be acting as “host”. The rest of the class remains in their seats and acts as audience members. Next, the host will ask each representative to present their group’s position to the class. Each representative should base their positions on evidence they took from the text provided. The representatives will present brief but complete remarks.
Finally, the students in the audience will ask the representatives questions about their positions. Students should ask questions based on the information they reviewed at the beginning of class. The representatives will have a chance to answer the questions and issue rebuttals to the other representative. Once the discussion is underway, students will be able to question other students. This will allow the entire class to engage in critical thinking as each student deals with these real-life issues and builds off of earlier comments.
Lesson Closure ‖ Time: 5 Min.
The teacher ends the lesson with a challenging question for the class: Since the Supreme Court left the door open for legislative changes, should Congress devise a new formula that once again allows for federal “pre-clearance” in some states with a history of voting discrimination?
This should provoke more discussion among the students. Additionally, it gives them something to think about when class ends. They will understand that this isn’t just a matter of history, but an unresolved issue in modern America.
This should provoke more discussion among the students. Additionally, it gives them something to think about when class ends. They will understand that this isn’t just a matter of history, but an unresolved issue in modern America.
Assessments (Formative & Summative)
Formative Assessment:
The teacher will closely monitor the students during the initial group discussions. The teacher will look for comprehension of the material and analysis of the issues. Each student should be participating in the group discussion.
Summative Assessment:
Each student’s participation in the “TV Chat Show” will demonstrate whether the student understands the content and engages fellow students with analytical observations and questions. Students will be assessed according to participation and rigor. Questions and answers given by students should demonstrate a command of the content and an ability to synthesize responses given by other students.
The teacher will closely monitor the students during the initial group discussions. The teacher will look for comprehension of the material and analysis of the issues. Each student should be participating in the group discussion.
Summative Assessment:
Each student’s participation in the “TV Chat Show” will demonstrate whether the student understands the content and engages fellow students with analytical observations and questions. Students will be assessed according to participation and rigor. Questions and answers given by students should demonstrate a command of the content and an ability to synthesize responses given by other students.
Accommodations for English Learners, Striving Readers and Students with Special Needs
English learners will be paired up with bilingual students who will be able to decipher the academic language in order to make the content meaningful. EL student will be able to use this partner during the group discussions and the “TV Chat Show”.
Striving readers will be paired up with a heterogeneous partner who is able to break down the written content. The two will work together so both the stronger reader and the striving reader can benefit from the partnership.
Students with special needs will be partnered with a heterogeneous partner for the entire class. This will enable the student to work through the complex issues presented in the lesson.
Striving readers will be paired up with a heterogeneous partner who is able to break down the written content. The two will work together so both the stronger reader and the striving reader can benefit from the partnership.
Students with special needs will be partnered with a heterogeneous partner for the entire class. This will enable the student to work through the complex issues presented in the lesson.
Resources (Books, Websites, Handouts, Materials)
39 copies of the CNN article. 1 overhead computer projector to view the CBS News story.