The American political environment has undergone drastic changes, influenced by the retrogressive agendas of some political establishments, which use the legislative powers vested by the State constitution to gain an unfair advantage in electoral contests. Democracy in these southern states has grappled with alleged incidences of discrimination against the black and Hispanic population by the white majority political class. Since the days of slavery, which was characterized by limiting of certain fundamental rights such as association, movement and voting rights, the vulnerable populations were given tough restrictions to reduce their political participation. These oppressive tactics by the white ruling class were vociferously countered, culminating in President Johnson’s signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Eckholm 54).

The Act was a win for the silent black communities, who were afforded more leeway in the registration process, encouraging an increment in black civic participation. It is important to note that the Democratic Party leans towards the marginalized black and Hispanic communities while the Republican Party acts in the interest of the Caucasian societies. The increasing threat of the previously dormant Democrats led to the conspiracy by the Republican legislature, aimed at swinging the pendulum in their favor. The Republicans had enjoyed the unfair advantage for over a century before the enactment of the 1965 law, implying that they were deeply rooted in the quagmire of the political landscape, finding comfort from a mediocre opposition. It is unfortunate that the Republicans resorted to gerrymandering, in an effort to consolidate their strongholds and detonate the impending Democrat resurgence, due to an alarming increase in black and Hispanic voters.

However, decades after removing these barriers to political participation, the same Republican luminaries revert to the restrictive legislative amendments, designed to limit the growing power of the electorate. It is with this in mind that young voters are being sidelined through these mechanisms, leading to the initiation of judicial intervention, aimed at limiting the abuse of power by conspiring candidates and their partisan ideologies. Detractors of electoral reforms argued that massive registration exercises are tied with the risk of inculcating corruption and voter fraud, but the nineties saw a win for the southern African Americans when President Clinton quickly approved a bill advocating for relaxed registration processes (Rutenberg 61).

This feature increased competition for seats, climaxing in the 2000 election debacle that challenged the reality of democracy throughout the country. Bush subsequently used Republican operatives to shoot down opposition powers through the Civil rights Commission, cunningly re-registering two appointees from Republican Party to Independents to by-pass the limit restrictions of the committee’s members. The Commission thus became overwhelmingly nonpartisan, illustrated in the voter conflict that was experienced in 2006, when white individuals attended a registration center that is frequented by the Hispanic community. It was perceived as threats, and a case was instituted, which the Justice Department quickly gave minimal sentences to the suspected perpetrators.

These confrontations led a Republican wave of amendments across the state houses they controlled, producing new voter-ID laws, which were strikingly similar across Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas among others. These tactics in the deeply conservative regions, however, failed to prosper since the action of civil rights groups and institutions led to a temporary suspension of the enactment of these new voter-ID laws (Madigan 53).
It is with this in mind that several landmark judicial rulings set the stage for other states and political stakeholders. A Florida Supreme Court overturned the reshaping of the legislative districts by the Republican elite, putting their self-interests at the forefront of the campaign to consolidate their strongholds. The ruling invigorated the voters, who in turn posted exceptionally high turnouts in the general election, even surpassing the traditionally higher white turnout (Rutenberg 56).

Similar sentiments were echoed in North Carolina, where the Federal courts are faced with cases against the legality of the amendments to voting rights Act. These amendments were made following the 2013 ruling by the Supreme Court, which struck down the voting rights. The Shelby County v. Holden case highlighted the contentious changes to the law requiring fewer days to register and an abolishment of both same day registration and the popular pre-registration program for teenagers ((Rutenberg 63).

It is unfortunate that the political environment is still rooted in sectarian ties, largely because of party machinations which are designed to hold power for eternity. The participation of a changing demographic will surely put an end to archaic political practices, meant to ensure incompetent incumbents remain vested within the political domain. The involvement of political consultants will invariably reduce the level of competition since they are inclined to strategize in a manner that will not allow room for compromise. Ohio, Maryland and Wisconsin States are contending with the same divisions, leading to an uncertain political future for retrogressive candidates and their styles.

The current states should, therefore, desist from changing their election laws, which should be conducted by independent commissions being utilized successfully in some states including Montana and Idaho. It would offer a fresh breath of air in the turbulent political arena within the states. Such preemptive responsibilities should be designed to reduce anxiety over the role of the political parties in making electoral decisions for the voters. It would lead to an unhealthy scenario where front-running candidates who are popular with the electorate but ostracized by Party leaders are derailed using the delegates votes, altering the face of democracy. It would lead to parties presenting puppet-strung candidates to the electorate only if they support the selfish interests of the party luminaries.