to place qualified persons on the list of eligible voters. The act waived accumulated poll taxes and abolished literacy tests and similar devices in those areas to which the statute applied. In addition, the act (under Section 5) required the seven states to obtain “preclear- ance” from the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before making changes in the electoral system. The 1982 extension of the act revised this provision, extending it to all states. This means that a voter may challenge a voting practice or procedure on the ground that it is racially discriminatory either by intent or by effect. Motor Voter Laws A state has the right to require bona fide residency as a prerequisite to the exercise of the right to vote in its elections. The courts have also upheld durational residency requirements (how long a person must have resided in the state) for voting. Beginning in the mid-1970s, however, many states began to abandon durational requirements, making it possible for a new resident to register to vote when he applies for a state driver’slicense.This “motor voter” statute was first enacted in Minnesota (Minn. Stat. Ann. § 201.161 [1992]) in 1992. By year’s end, 27 states had some form of motor voter law. Congress eliminated dura- tional residency requirements for voting with the passage of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1973gg et seq.). The act allows anyone over the age of 18 to register to vote while obtaining a driver’slicense. Apportionment Guaranteeing an individual the right to vote does not necessarily mean that the voters in a particular district have the same voting strength as voters in another district. Since the 1960s, however, the implementation of the concept of ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE has meant that unreason- able disparities in voting strength have been eliminated. Nevertheless, racially discriminatory dilutions of voting strength have led the federal courts to become intimately involved in the drawing of election districts. OnePerson,OneVote The Supreme Court, in REYNOLDS V. SIMS, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S. Ct. 1362, 12 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1964), established the principle of “one person, one vote” based on the EQUAL PROTECTION Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision resulted in almost every state’s redrawing its legislative districts and in the shifting of power from rural to urban areas. All subsequent CONSTITUTIONAL LAW on APPORTIONMENT has relied on the principles established in Reynolds. Until the Reynolds decision, most state legislatures gave more seats to sparsely popu- lated rural areas than to heavily populated urban areas. Because rural legislators controlled the legislature and had a vested interest in perpetuating this apportionment scheme, legis- lative change had proved impossible. In Rey- nolds the Supreme Court concluded that to permit the minority to have power over the majority would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The dilution of the weight of a person’s vote because of where that person lives qualified as invidious discrimination, just as if the decision had been based on that person’s race or financial status. Therefore, the Court required that “each citizen have an equally effective voice in the election of members of his state legislature.” Racially Discriminatory Apportionment The Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave the courts the right to review racially discriminatory election districts. The federal courts have struck down at-large elections, in which a number of officials are chosen to represent the district, as opposed to an arrangement under which each of the officials represents one smaller district or ward. Southern cities where whites were in the majority used the at-large election system to perpetuate all-white rule. Courts have required the creation of smaller wards or districts that give African Americans and other protected groups a reasonable opportunity to elect a person of color to city council. Racial Gerrymandering The courts have also tackled the issue of racial gerry mandering, which is the intentional manipulation of legislative districts for poli tical purposes. In these cases, districts have been drawn in odd shapes to include or exclude voters of a particular race. In early cases, white politicians gerryman- dered districts to prevent Afr ican Americans from having any voting strength . In the 1990s the debate moved to the legitimacy of creating, under the authority of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, unusually shaped congressional districts to ensure that they contained a majority of minority voters. The perceived hope was that minority unity would lead to the elections of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 268 VOTING persons of color. The Supreme Court, in SHAW V. HUNT, 517 U.S. 899, 116 S. Ct. 1894, 135 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1996), ruled that the redrawing of a North Carolina congressional district into a “bizarre-looking” shape in order to include a majority of African Americans could not be justified by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice SANDRA DAY O 'CONNOR found it “unsettling how closely the North Carolina plan resembles the most egregious racial gerry mandering of the past.” O'Connor agreed that prior cases had never made race-conscious redistricting “impermissi- ble in all circumstances,” yet agreed with the white plaintiffs that the redistricting was “so extremely irregular on its face that it rationally can be viewed only as an effort to segregate races for purposes of voting, without regard for traditional districtin g principles and without sufficiently compelling justification.” The Supreme Court continued its review of allegedly racially gerrymandered districts in Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 117 S.Ct. 1925, 138 L.Ed.2d 285 (1997). The Court upheld a legislative redistricting plan that reduced from three to one the number of majority-black congressional districts in Geor- gia. The Court supported the district court’s decision not to preserve three majority-black districts because the area’s African American population was not sufficiently compact to sustain three, or even two, districts. According to the ruling, drawing multiple districts would have resulted in racial gerrymandering. The Court also ruled that the plan’s creat ion of only one majority-black district would not violate the Voting Rights Act by cau sing retrogression in the political position of African American citizens. It noted that in the 1992 elections, held under the challenged plan, all three African American incumbents won re-election, two of whom while running against white candi- dates from majority-white districts. This con- firmed for the Court that the plan was not discriminatory. In Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 528 U.S. 320, 120 S. Ct. 866, 145 L.Ed.2d 845 (2000), the Supreme Court effectively resolved the relationship between Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 applies to all 50 states, while Section 5 applies to seven southern states (including Louisiana) that had used poll taxes, literacy tests, and other devices to obstruct registration by African Americans. The Court ruled that a redistricting plan may be precleared under Section 5, even if the proposed plan might seemingly violate Section 2. As a result, the Court reversed 25 years of federal policy by limiting the power of the Justice Department to block proposed redis- tricting changes for state and local elections. African American citizens of Bossier Parish, Louisiana, objected to a redistricting plan drawn up by the Bossier Parish School Board, which had been precleared under Section 5 by the Justice Department. They argued that Section 2 barred the plan because it denied the creation of several majority-black districts. When it was supplied with evidence of possible discrimina- tion and an alternative redistricting plan by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( NAACP), the Justice Department moved to block the original preclearance. The school board challenged the decision before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that Section 5 was intended by Congress to prevent backsliding by states that had a history of past voter discrimination. As long as the new plan did not increase the degree of discrimina- tion (which they felt it did not), it was not retrogressive and therefore was entitled to Section 5 preclearance. Voting Procedures The passage of the federal motor voter law eliminated restrictive voter registration require- ments. A person may now register when applying for a state driver’s license. In addition, a person may register at the polling place in his voting district by showing a state driver’s license and having two witnesses vouch forhim.Persons who are not able to vote at a polling place on election day may apply for an absentee ballot and vote ahead of time. These ballots are not opened until after the polls close on election day. Since 1884 the United States has used the secret ballot. Originally, paper ballots were used, but in many areas of the United States mechanical voting machines are employed. Voting systems are also in place in which a machine optically scans a paper ballot and tabulates the votes for each office. Enhanced technology has allowed quicker reporting of results and fewer arithmetical errors. Neverthe- less, candidates may ask for a recount of the ballots, and in circumstances where the vote is very close or where FRAUD is alleged, each ballot GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION VOTING 269 is examined for accuracy and compliance with the law. Generally, the results of each election race are reported to a local board, which certifies the result to the state’s SECRETARY OF STATE. The secretary, in turn, reviews the results and issues an official certificate of election to the successful candidate. Voting Irregularities in the Early 2000s The first decade of the 2000s has seen a number of irregularities with regard to voting processes. The first presidential election of the decade in November 2000 was the most controversial. In a tight race in Florida, which effectively decided the election, Republican GEORGE W. BUSH first appeared to defeat Democrat AL GORE by a margin of just over 1,784 votes. A subsequent recount of the vote narrowed the margin to 327 votes. Gore demanded a manual recount, but on November 26, 2000, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris declared Bush to be the winner. Gore challenged the decision in court. On December 8, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide manual recount. However, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Florida court’s recount decision, pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of the issue. The Court heard oral arguments in the case on December 11, 2000, and decided the cases just a day later. In Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S. Ct. 525, 148 L. Ed. 2d 388, the Court ruled that the recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitu- tion. The Court immediately ended the recount, thus meaning that Bush won the election. Many of the problems in the 2000 election in Florida related to the state’s use of punch-card voting ballots, but this problem had not been solved by the time of the 2004 election. Several other irregularities arose in 2004. In several instances, voting lists were purged, prompting challenges by groups who believed that qualified voters had been removed from these lists. The problem occurred yet again in 2008, when officials in a few states were accused of improp- erly purging lists of voters who might have been eligible to vote in the presidential election. Rock the Vote and Motor Voter T B he campaign to pass the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1973gg et seq.), popularly known as the “motor- voter” law, was led by the Motor Voter Coalition (www.motorvoter.com), an umbrell a organization of nonpartisan groups. Some of t he organizations that participated, such as the League of Women Voters and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), had a long history of promoting voting rights. Many secretaries of state, the state officials who administer elections, also supported NVRA. The most publicity, however, was attrac ted by the Rock the Vote organization. Rock the Vote (www.rockthevote.com) is a non-partisan group based in Washington, D.C., that was originally funded primarily by contributions from the popular music industry. Rock the Vote was established in 1990 to fight music censorship and promote the First Amendment throug h the re gistration of voters between the ages of 18 and 24. Soon, however, Rock the Vote became a vocal supporter of the motor-voter bill, which simplifies voter registration and relaxes re sidency requirements. Rock the Vote enlisted the help of many famous popular singers, rock bands, and rap artists to encourage the passage of the motor-voter bill. The rock group R.E.M. even included a postcard with one of its recordings that could be sent by a listener to Congress in support of the bill. President Bill Clinton, who benefited from Rock the Vote's 1992 drive to register young voters, acknowledged the organization's efforts at the bill-signing ceremony on May 20, 1993. Since the enactment of the l aw, Rock the Vote has continued to register young voters, but its mission has broadened to include educating young people on political issues effecting social change. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 270 VOTING FURTHER READINGS Abramowitz, Alan. 2004. Voice of the People: Elections and Voting in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill. Burke, Christopher M. 1999. The Appearance of Equality: Racial Gerrymandering, Redistricting, and the Supreme Court. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood. Festa, Matthew J. 2001. “The Origins and Constitutionality of State Unit Voting in the Electoral College.”Vanderbilt Law Review 54 (October). Griffith, Benjamin. 2008. America Votes! A Guide to Modern Election Law and Voting Rights. Chicago, Ill.: American Bar Association. CROSS REFERENCES Absentee Voting; Baker v. Carr; Civ il Rig hts; Equal Protection; Gerrymander; Independent Parties; Republican Party; "Voting Rights Act of 1965" (Appendix, Primar y Document); Women ’s Rights. VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 The Vo ting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 et seq.) prohibits the states and their political subdivisions from imposing voting qualifications or prerequisites on voting, or standards, practices, or procedures that deny or curtail the right of a U.S. citizen to vote because of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. A product of the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT of the 1960s, the Voting Rights Act has proven to be an effective, but controversial, piece of legislation. The act was extended in 1970, 1982, and 2006, when its provisions were renewed for an additional 25 years. In the early 1960s, very few African Amer- icans in the South were allowed to vote. Southern states used literacy tests and physical and economic coercion to prevent African Americans from registering to vote. The state legal systems supported these practices, leaving African Americans and other minority groups with few options to challenge voting discrimination. Civil rights leaders organized public protests and voter-registration drives but met w ith intense resistance from local authorities. A 1965 march to Selma, Alabama, by Dr. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. and other CIVIL RIGHTS supporters to demand voting rights led to police violence and the MURDER of several marchers. The Selma violence galvanized voting rights supporters in Congress. President LYNDON B. JOHNSON responded by introducing the Voting Rights Act, the toughest civil rights law in 100 years. Congress enacted the measure five months later. Congress based its authority to regulate voting practices on the FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution, which gives all citizens the right to vote regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The passage of the act ended the traditional practice of allowing states to handle all matters concernin g voting and elections. The Voting Rights Act is premised on the active participation of the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and the federal courts. Southern states challenged the legislation as a dangerous attack on states’ rights, but the U.S. SUPREME COURT,inSouth Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 86 S. Ct. 803, 15 L. Ed. 2d 769 (1966), upheld the constitutionality of the act, despite the fact that the law was, in the words of Chief Justice EARL WARREN, “inventive.” The original act was directed at seven southern states—Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia—which had used poll taxes, literacy tests, and other devices to obstruct registration by African Americans. Under the law, a federal court can appoint examiners, who are authorized to place qualified persons on the list of eligible voters. The act waived accumulated poll taxes and abolished literacy tests and similar devices in those areas to African Americans line up to cast their votes during 1966 elections in Alabama. Before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, very few African Americans in the South were allowed to vote. FLIP SCHULKE/CORBIS. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 271 which the statute applied. It required that bilingual election materials be made available in areas where more than five percent of the citizens are members of a single-language minority. The act also required the seven states to obtain “preclearance” from the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before making changes in the electoral system. The state has the burden of proving that the proposed changes do not have the purpose or effect of “denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” The Supreme Court has construed this provision to require approval of even inconsequential altera- tions. As a result, relocation of polling sites, changes in ballot forms, reapportionment of election districts, municipal annexations, and revision of rules pertaining tothequalifications of candidates and the appointive or elective nature of the office fall within the ambit of federal supervision. If a modification of the election law, such as redistricting, has the purpose or effect of denying orcurtailing the right to voteon the basis of race, it may be held to violate the Voting Rights Act. The 198 2 extension of the act revised this provision, extending it to all states. This means that a voter may challenge a voting practice or procedure on the ground that it is racially discriminatory either by intent or by effect. By 2009 North Carolina was removed from the group, except for several counties. The states of Alaska, Arizona, and Texas are now covered by the act, as are counties in five states that include California, Florida, New York,andSouthDakota. The most controversial issue for the courts has been whether voting districts can be redrawn to facilitate the election of racial minorities. The lower federal courts had approved such reappor- tionment plans, but the Supreme Court dealt a severe blow to these attempts in Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 116 S. Ct. 1894, 135 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1996). In Shaw the Court ruled that the redrawing of a North Carolina congressiona l district into a “bizarre-looking” shape, so as to include a majority of African Americans, could not be justified by the Voting Rights Act, because it violated the EQUAL PROTECTION Clause of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. The Supreme Court ruled in Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 129 S.Ct. 1231, 173 L. Ed.2d 173 (2009) that the act does not require state officials to draw election-district lines to allow a racial minority that would make up less than 50 percent of the voting-age population in the redrawn district to join with "crossover" voters to elect the minority’s candidate of choice. This case involved an intermediate, "crossover" district, in which the minority made up less than a majority of the voting-age population but was large enough to elect the candidate of its choice with help from majority voters who cross over to support the minority’s preferred candidate. The court held that a party asserting a violation of the act must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the minor- ity population in the potential election district is greater than 50 percent. The Court has held both that the act can require the creation of a "majority-minority" district, in which a minor- ity group comprises a numerical, working majority of the voting-age population, and that the act does not req uire the creation of an "influence" district, in which a minority group can influence the outcome of an election even if its preferred candidate cannot be elected. Concerns about voter fraud have led some states to enact election laws that require a prospective voter to provide a photo ID. Civil rights groups attacked these laws, arguing that they discriminate against minorities. These law- suits asserted violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act. However, the Supreme Court rejected these arguments in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1610, 170 L.Ed.2d 174 (2008). The Court upheld an Indiana statute that required either a state issued driver’slicense or state issued photo identification card from a person wishing to vote at the polls. The Voting Rights Act has proven effective in breaking down discriminatory barriers to voting. Enforcement of the act in the South resulted in substantially higher levels of voter registration among African Americans. Many politicians who formerly made overt appeals to white supremacy tempered their racist rhetoric to draw support from new black voters. In addition, many African Americans have been elected to public office in areas where whites had ruled exclusively. FURTHER READINGS Hershey, Marjorie. 2008.Party Politics in America.13th ed. New York: Longman. Keyssar, Alexander. 2009. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. New York; Basic Books. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 272 VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 An agreement made this ________ day of _______________, (year)___, between stockholders of ________________________________ Corporation, a Corporation organized under the laws of _______________, whose names are hereunto subscribed and all other stock- holders of the said company who shall join in and become parties to this agreement as hereinafter provided, all of which stockholders are hereinafter called subscribers, and, __________________________ who is hereinafter called the trustee(s): Whereas, the subscribers are respectively owners of shares of common stock in the Corporation and the amounts set out opposite their signatures hereto; And whereas, with a view to the safe and competent management of the Corporation, in the interest of all the stockholders thereof, the subscribers are desirous of creating a trust in the following manner; Now, it is hereby agreed and declared as follows: 1. The subscribers shall forthwith endorse, assign, and deliver to the trustee(s) the certificates representing the shares of stock owned by them respectively, and shall do all things necessary for the transfer of their respective shares to the trustee(s) on the books of the Corporation. 2. Every other stockholder in the corporation may become a party to this agreement by signing it and assigning and delivering the certificate(s) of his or her shares to the trustee(s). 3. The trustee(s) shall hold the shares of stock transferred to them, under the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. 4. The trustee(s) shall surrender to the proper officer of the Corporation the certificates of the subscribers, and shall receive for them new certificates issued to them as trustee(s) under this agreement. 5. The trustee(s) shall issue to each of the subscribers a trust certificate for the number of shares transferred by the subscriber to the trustees. Each trust certificate shall state that it is issued under this agreement, and shall set forth each subscriber's proportional interest in the trust. The trustee(s) shall keep a list of the shares of stock transferred to them, and shall keep a record of all trust certificates issued or transferred on their books, which records shall contain the names and addresses of the trust certificate holders and the number of shares represented by each trust certificate. Such list and record shall be open at all reasonable times to the inspection of the trust certificate holders. 6. It shall be the duty of the trustee(s), and they, or a majority of them, shall have the power to represent the holders of such trust certificates and the stock transferred to the trustee(s) as aforesaid, and vote upon such stock, as in the judgment of the trustee(s), or of a majority of them, may be for the best interest of the Corporation, in the election of directors and upon any and all matters and questions which may be brought before them, as fully as any stockholder might do. 7. The trustee(s) shall collect and receive all dividends that may accrue upon the shares of stock subject to this trust, and shall pay the same to the trust certificate holders in proportion to the number of shares respectively represented by their trust certificates. 8. The trustee(s) shall be entitled to be fully indemnified out of the dividends coming into their hands for all costs, changes, expenses, and other liabilities properly incurred by them in the exercise of any power conferred upon them by this agreement; and the subscribers hereby covenant with the trustee(s) that in the event of the monies and securities in their hands being insufficient for that purpose, the subscribers and each of them will, in proportion to the amounts of their respective shares and interests, indemnify the trustee(s) of and from all loss or damage which they may sustain or be put to, by reason of anything they may lawfully do in the execution of this trust. 9. In the event that the holder of any trust certificate shall desire to sell or pledge his or her beneficial interest in the shares of stock represented thereby, he or she shall first give to the trustee(s) notice in writing of such desire, and the trustee(s) shall have the right to purchase the trust certificates at the book value of the stock represented by such certificates at the time of such purchase. If the trustee(s) shall exercise such option to purchase, they shall hold the beneficial interest thereof for the benefit of all the remaining trust certificate holders who shall, upon days' notice given by the trustee(s) before exercising such option, contribute their respective proportionate share of the purchase money to be paid by the trustee(s). In the event that the trustee(s) shall not exercise such option to purchase the subscriber's interest, and only in that event, the holder of such trust certificate shall have the right to sell the same to such person and for such price as he or she sees fit. 10. In the event of any trustee dying, resigning, refusing, or becoming unable to act, the surviving or other trustee(s), if any, shall appoint a trustee or trustees to fill the vacancy or vacancies, and any person so appointed shall thereupon be vested with all the duties, powers, and authority of a trustee as if originally named herein. 11. This trust shall continue for ______ years from the date hereof, and shall then terminate, provided, however, that the beneficial owners of ______% of the shares of stock subject to this agreement may at any time terminate this trust by resolution adopted at a meeting of the trust certificate holders called by any one of them, upon notice of _______ days, stating the purpose of such meeting, in writing, mailed to the trust certificate holders at their respective addresses as they appear in the records of the trustee(s). Upon the termination of the trust, the trustee(s) shall, upon the surrender of the trust certificates by the respective holders thereof, assign and transfer to them the number of shares of stock thereby represented. Voting Trust Agreement [continued] A sample voting trust agreement VOTING TRUST 273 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION Landsberg, Brian K. 2003. “Sumter County, Alabama and the Origins of the Voting Rights Act.” Alabama Law Review 54 (spring). Laney, Garrine P. 2003. The Voting Rights Act of 1965: Historical Background and Current Issues. New York: Nova Science. CROSS REFERENCES Civil Rights Movement; Gerrymander; Voting; ‘Voting Rights Act of 1965” (Appendix, Primary Document). VOTING TRUST A type of agreement by which two or more individuals who own corporate stock that carries VOTING RIGHTS transfer their shares to another party for voting purposes, so as to control corporate affairs. A voting trust is created by an agreement between a group of stockholders and the trustee to whom they transfer their voting rights or by a group of identical agreements betweenindividual shareholders and a commo n trustee. Such agreements ordinarily provide that control of stock is given tothe trustee for a term of years, for a time period contingent upon a certain event, or until the termination of the agreement. Voting trust agreements may provide that the stock- holders can direct how the stock is to be voted. VOUCHEE A person for whom another vouches; a person cited as authority in support of a fact. Under a procedure in COMMON LAW, a person from whom a DEFENDANT will seek INDEMNITY if a PLAINTIFF is successful in his or her action against the defendant. VOUCHER A receipt or release that provides evidence of payment or other discharge of a debt, often for purposes of reimbursement, or attests to the accuracy of the accounts; a voucher would be held by the person or company who will receive payment. A sample voting trust agreement (continued). ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PER- MISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the individual parties hereto set their hands and seals, and the corporation has caused this agreement to be signed by its duly authorized officers. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________ CORPORATION Secretary ____________________________ President ____________________________ __________________________ Shareholder Shareholder Name of Trustee(s) ___________________________ Voting Trust Agreement GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 274 VOTING TRUST For example, government or corporate employees usually submit vouchers to their employers to recover living expenses the employees have paid while on business trips or used for other reimbursible expenditures. VOUCHING-IN A procedural device used in common law bywhich a defendant notifies another, not presently a party to a lawsuit, that if a plaintiff is successful, the defendant will seek indemnity from that individual. The no tice that an individual, the vouchee, receives as a result of vouching-in constitutes an offer for him or her to defend in the action against the defendant. If the vouchee refuses to do so, he or she will be bound in any later actions between the plaintiff and the defendant involving factual determinations necessary to the original judgment. Although vouching-in has been largely replaced by third-party practice, called IMPLEA- DER , under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of CIVIL PROCEDURE , it has not been abolished. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION VOUCHING-IN 275 WADSET In Scotland, the ancient term for a mortgage. A right by which lands or other property are pledged by their owner to a creditor in security for a debt, usually in the form of a mutual contract, in which one party sells the land and the other grants the right of reversion. WAGE ASSIGNMENT The voluntar y transfer in advance of a debtor’s pay, generally in connection with a particular debt or judgment. A debtor may negotiate with a creditor a wage assignment plan in which a portion of the debtor’s paycheck is transferred to the creditor by the employer. This voluntary agreement is in contrast to GARNISHMENT, in which a creditor obtains an order from the court to collect part of a debtor’s wages from the employer. Both wage assignments and garnishment are gov- erned by statutes in most states. A wage assignment is similar to an ASSIGN- MENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS , in which the debtor assigns PERSONAL PROPERTY to a trustee. Typically, the trustee sells the property and applies the proceeds to the debt. Any amount in excess of the debt is returned to the debtor. Since the 1980s wage assignments have become an important method of making CHILD SUPPORT payments in the United States. In 1984 the federal government required all states to implement child support guidelines for WELFARE recipients. As time passed, those guidelines were implemented across the board in all cases involving child support. While a wage assign- ment has typically been viewed as a VOLUNTARY ACT by the assignee, courts now issue wage assignment orders directing employers to with- hold child support payments and send the funds to a designated recipient such as a custodial parent, the court, or a state agency. Although the paying parent may be a responsible individual who would never miss a payment, and the recipient parent may honestly report all payments received, the wage assign- ment eliminates potential conflict by using a neutral third party to implement the paying and reporting of payments. Employers generally do not impute bad character to an employee paying child support through a wage assignment, and the courts routinely issue orders without finding fault. Wage assignment orders are appropriate for salaried employees but do not work effectively for self-employed individuals or people in cash businesses. A wage assignment may also be used when an employee obtains a loan from his employer and wants to repay the loan by having the employer withhold money from future pay- checks. An employer who lends an employee a sum of money cannot take it out of the employee’s next paycheck without a proper, written, notarized assignment from the em- ployee. State statutes require that legal for- malities be followed, or the withholding of W 277 . Contested History of Democracy in the United States. New York; Basic Books. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 272 VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 An agreement made this ________ day of _______________,. where FRAUD is alleged, each ballot GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION VOTING 269 is examined for accuracy and compliance with the law. Generally, the results of each election race are reported. perceived hope was that minority unity would lead to the elections of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 268 VOTING persons of color. The Supreme Court, in SHAW V. HUNT, 517 U.S. 899, 116