Relationship Between Citizenship And Suffrage

The relationship between citizenship, rights to suffrage and representation can best be understood as an equation.
Citizenship + Suffrage = Representation
Citizenship is a term to that refers to the relationship between individuals and the government over the land in which they live. Suffrage in it’s most basic form is one’s eligibility to vote. It’s more considerate form takes into account the obstacles that one faces in the ability to vote. The final part of the equation is representation. Representation in our democracy is crucial. Representation means that the people are represented by public officials who, at the very least, have knowledge of their culture, background, and are willing to fight for what their constituents want and
Reese in 1876. The court ruled that it could only protect against interference in federal elections and that state elections were outside of their jurisdiction (McClain & Carew, 2017). This is an example of being a citizen but not being afford protected suffrage. Another case that represents the relationship between suffrage and citizenship for representation is Elk v. Wilkins (1884). The Court’s decision was that Indians were unable to prove their citizenship in being born in the U.S., thus were not able to register to vote (McClain & Carew, 2017). Essentially, because they had existed in the confines of the land of the U.S. and couldn’t prove it, they were unable to attain citizenship for their right to vote. The third case that is representative of the above relationship is Smith v. Allwright (1944) Justice’s ruled that the “white primaries” used by Democratic parties were unconstitutional and a violation of the 14th Amendment (Shaw et. Al, 2015). This case argues the relationship between citizenship and representation because Smith was considered a citizen but his right to suffrage was not protected in Texas primaries until the Court ruled it
Jim Crow policies were responsible for disenfranchising black voters by using poll taxes, literacy tests, the Grandfather clause, and outright threats of violence (Shaw et. Al, 2015). Employment and criminal justice practices had severe economical consequences. Sharecropping deprived black farmers out of their share of revenue from crops. Blacks who were arrested, and sometimes kidnapped, were reduced to longer and harsher sentences (Shaw et. Al, 2015). This isn’t an extensive list of some of the policies during the Jim Crow period but does the kinder side of Jim