2023–2024 Voting Rights Prizes Rules and Guidelines
Overview
The 2023–2024 Voting Rights Prizes Contest (“Contest”) is designed to celebrate outstanding student work using material from The Right to Vote project for civic engagement. In 2023, this Contest will provide ten (10) students with an individual prize of $500 that must be allocated toward educational advancement (the “Award”).
The Contest is sponsored by the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, 49 W. 45th Street, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10036 (“Sponsor”). The Award is privately funded through a grant from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, 202 S. 36th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (“Grantor”).
About the Grantor
A premier communication policy center, The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania was founded in 1993 and created FactCheck.org in 2003. By conducting and disseminating research, staging conferences, and hosting policy discussions, its scholars have addressed the role of communication in politics, science, adolescent behavior, child development, health care, suicide prevention, civics, and mental health, among other important areas. The center’s researchers have drafted materials that have helped policy makers, journalists, scholars, constituent groups, and the general public better understand the role that media play in their lives and the life of the nation.
Eligibility Requirements
To be eligible for the Contest, an entrant must be a student in grades 9 through 12. Submissions that fail to meet this requirement will not be eligible for the Contest.
A student who has not reached the age of majority in his or her state of domicile as of the date on which the Contest commences must receive their parent’s or legal guardian’s permission to enter the Contest.
Employees of the Sponsor and Grantor and members of their immediate family or persons living in the same household are not eligible for the Contest.
Submission Requirements
All submissions must be submitted using the online application form. First-time users of the site will be asked to create a profile before proceeding to the application form. Students will be asked to submit their entry to the contest as a file attachment.
The Application Form will open on May 30, 2023, and will close on January 16, 2024. The Application Form can be found on the Gilder Lehrman website. Students will also need to submit certain personal information (such as address and telephone number), school information, and parent/guardian information on the Application Form.
There is a limit of one (1) entry per person using only one (1) email address for the Contest. This limit will be strictly enforced. Substitutions of entry files may be completed via email to education@gilderlehrman.org through 11:59 p.m. ET January 17, 2024. Incomplete entries or entries not complying with these Rules are subject to disqualification.
There is no purchase necessary to enter the Contest or win the Award.
Judging Criteria
Eligible students being considered for the Award will be evaluated on two key areas:
- Quality of research
- Historical integrity of the piece
Additional criteria for evaluation dependent on the medium are as follows:
- Essays and Podcast PSAs: Persuasiveness, quality of production
- Project reports: Articulation of strategy; impact and resilience of plan
For each of these areas, students will be assigned a score of 1–5 in accordance with the “Judging Process” section below.
Scores in each of these areas will be equally weighted.
Below is a description of each rating category.
Argumentative Writing: Opinion pieces, letters to the editor, letters to legislators or county/local officials
| Research | Historical Reflection | Persuasiveness | Quality of Writing | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Inadequate or no research shown | Lacks historical reflection or is solely contemporary in focus | No argument or argument is minimally or not proven by the evidence | Is solely descriptive; may lack understanding, application, or analysis; includes few relevant facts, examples, or details; may include numerous inaccuracies; structure is minimally followed or not apparent |
| 2 | Utilizes secondary sources of unclear reputability, or utilizes secondary sources more frequently than primary sources | Very inconsistent in reflecting upon the historical record; many inaccuracies appear | Needs a greater connection between central argument and historical and contemporary evidence; piece may also be unfocused or unclear in its central argument, or the argument changes over the course of the work | Is primarily descriptive; may include faulty, weak, or isolated application or analysis includes few relevant facts, examples, and details; may include some inaccuracies; may lack focus; may contain digressions; may not clearly identify which aspect of the task is being addressed; may lack an introduction and/or a conclusion |
| 3 | Good example of historical research and use of primary sources; includes background attributed to reputable secondary sources | Commitment to historical reflection is generally maintained in the piece | Connection between central argument and historical and contemporary evidence is clear, though not necessarily persuasive | Is more descriptive than analytical (applies, may analyze, and/or evaluate information); includes some relevant facts, examples, and details; may include some minor inaccuracies; demonstrates a satisfactory plan of organization; includes an introduction and a conclusion that may be a restatement of the central argument |
| 4 | Students regularly select effective primary sources to support their claims, and verify information between primary and secondary sources | Historical record regularly reflected upon to inform contemporary debate and advocacy | Above-average defense of the central argument with historical and contemporary evidence; counterarguments are considered though not fully rebutted | Is both descriptive and analytical (applies, analyzes, evaluates, and/or creates information); supports the theme with relevant facts, examples, and details; demonstrates a logical and clear plan of organization; includes an introduction and a conclusion that are beyond a restatement of the argument |
| 5 | Clear evidence of exemplary research in and analysis of primary sources: Students select rich quotations from within the most appropriate genres of primary sources, and they analyze these quotations with advanced analytic techniques (e.g., recognizing patterns, drawing inferences, interpreting silences, developing alternative readings to the historical mainstream). | Clear and consistent evidence of exemplary historical reflection to inform contemporary debate and advocacy | Clearly defends the central argument with exemplary historical and contemporary evidence, and accounts for and rebuts counterarguments; reader is well-persuaded by the piece | Is more analytical than descriptive (analyzes, evaluates, and/or creates information); richly supports the theme with many relevant facts, examples, and details; demonstrates a logical and clear plan of organization; includes an introduction and a conclusion that are beyond a restatement of the theme |
Podcast PSAs
| Research | Historical Reflection | Persuasiveness | Quality of Writing and Production | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Inadequate or no research shown | Lacks historical reflection or is solely contemporary in focus | No argument or argument is minimally or not proven by the evidence | Script is exclusively descriptive; final piece does not support the central argument with either archival or reenactment audio; editing is nonexistent and/or leads to a final product that is difficult to listen to |
| 2 | Utilizes secondary sources of unclear reputability, or utilizes secondary sources more frequently than primary sources | Very inconsistent in reflecting upon the historical record; many inaccuracies appear | Needs a greater connection between central argument and historical and contemporary evidence; piece may also be unfocused or unclear in its central argument, or the argument changes over the course of the work | Script is almost exclusively descriptive rather than analytical; final piece does not support the central argument with either archival or reenactment audio; editing leads to a lower-fidelity audio product |
| 3 | Good example of historical research and use of primary sources; includes background attributed to reputable secondary sources | Commitment to historical reflection is generally maintained in the piece | Connection between central argument and historical and contemporary evidence is clear, though not necessarily persuasive | Script is more descriptive than analytical; final piece may not support the central argument with either archival or reenactment audio; editing leads to a lower-fidelity audio product |
| 4 | Students regularly select effective primary sources to support their claims, and verify information between primary and secondary sources | Historical record regularly reflected upon to inform contemporary debate and advocacy | Above-average defense of the central argument with historical and contemporary evidence; counterarguments are considered though not fully rebutted | Script is equally analytical and descriptive; final piece supports the central argument with archival or reenactment audio, but not necessarily to the fullest extent of its use; editing is clear but may be confusing or be as captivating to the listener |
| 5 | Clear evidence of exemplary research in and analysis of primary sources: Students select rich quotations from within the most appropriate genres of primary sources, and they analyze these quotations with advanced analytic techniques (e.g., recognizing patterns, drawing inferences, interpreting silences, developing alternative readings to the historical mainstream). | Clear and consistent evidence of exemplary historical reflection to inform contemporary debate and advocacy | Clearly defends the central argument with exemplary historical and contemporary evidence, and accounts for and rebuts counterarguments; listener is well-persuaded by the piece | Script is more analytical than descriptive; final piece richly supports the central argument with archival or reenactment audio; sound design and editing is clear and captivating |
Project reports: Project summaries of petition drives, voter registration/poll worker programs, and longer-term tackling of an issue in their community/county/state concerning voting.
| Research | Historical Reflection | Strategy | Impact & Resilience | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Inadequate or no research shown | Lacks historical reflection or is solely contemporary in focus | Plan for activity is unclear or inadequate to achieve success | Impact of engagement in the community/county/state is unclear or not apparent |
| 2 | Combines secondary sources of unclear reputability, or utilizes secondary sources more frequently than primary sources Needs more evidence of research, especially primary source research | Very inconsistent in reflecting upon the historical record; many inaccuracies appear | Key flaws or inconsistencies apparent in the project plan | Impact of engagement is minimal, with summary being unclear or reticent as to how to build upon these efforts/what went wrong in the future |
| 3 | Good example of historical research and use of primary sources; includes background attributed to reputable secondary sources | Commitment to historical reflection is generally maintained in the piece | Strategy for engagement is generally well thought out | Impact of engagement is minimal, but summary gives some examples as to how to build upon these efforts/what went wrong |
| 4 | Students regularly select effective primary sources to support their claims, and verify information between primary and secondary sources | Historical record regularly reflected upon to inform contemporary debate and advocacy | Thorough strategy for success apparent; may have some minor flaws but otherwise set up for project success | Impact of engagement is substantial, with many examples given for improvement |
| 5 | Clear evidence of exemplary research in and analysis of primary sources: Students select rich quotations from within the most appropriate genres of primary sources, and they analyze these quotations with advanced analytic techniques (e.g., recognizing patterns, drawing inferences, interpreting silences, developing alternative readings to the historical mainstream). | Clear and consistent evidence of exemplary historical reflection to inform contemporary debate and advocacy | Clear, thorough strategy with contingencies to deal with roadblocks apparent throughout | Impact of engagement is clear throughout; project clearly affected voting rights and voting access in the community/county/state where the engagement took place; many examples are given for further improvement and optimization of the plan for the future |
Judging Process
A panel of three to five qualified judges with knowledge of the expectations of the Award will review all submissions against the judging criteria listed above and provide a score for each of the components on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best score.
Following review of entries using anti-plagiarism software, the highest fifteen (15) to twenty (20) scored submissions will then be provided to a finalist committee composed of three to five qualified judges with knowledge of the expectations of the Award for final determination of Award recipients. At least five (5) entries in each submission category will be considered by the finalists. Using the same judging criteria, the finalist committee will review all of the finalist applications and issue an overall score for each application. The ten submissions with highest scores provided by the finalist committee will be selected as the Award winners (“Award Winners”).
In the event of a tie in the finalist committee round, ties will be broken at the Sponsor’s discretion.
Announcement of Award Winners
The Award Winners will be notified by email by February 27, 2023 (“Award Date”). The Award Winners will also be listed on the Sponsors’ websites by March 5, 2023.
The Award
The Award Winners will each receive the Award, which is a $500 prize.
Privacy Policy
All information submitted for the Contest and through the Gilder Lehrman website is in compliance with the Gilder Lehrman Institute’s Privacy Policy. A copy of the Privacy Policy can be found here.
Award Redemption
In order to redeem the Award, each potential Award Winner (and/or their parent or legal guardian, if the entrant has not reached the age of majority in their state of domicile) MUST sign and return the required consents, forms, and releases of liability that include a publicity release (except where prohibited by law) by March 4, 2024. The Sponsor may also require a potential Award Winner to complete, sign, and return to Sponsors an IRS W-9 and such other documents as may be required by Sponsor prior to the redemption of the Award. Failure to complete and submit paperwork by this deadline will result in forfeiture of the Award, and the Sponsor shall have the option to award the Award to an alternate winner. The bounceback or return of any prize notification may result in disqualification if the Sponsor is unable to reach the Award Winner or the Award Winner’s guardians. An alternate winner may be selected. If a potential Award Winner forfeits the Award for any reason, the entry that received the next highest score total may be chosen as a potential winner, or the Sponsors may elect not to award such Award to any student, at the Sponsor’s sole discretion. By entering this Contest, each entrant accepts and agrees to these Rules and the decisions of the Sponsor, which shall be final in all matters.
All expenses incurred in claiming or using an element of the Award, including without limitation taxes and any other costs, are the sole responsibility of the Award Winner.
Each Award Winner is solely responsible for federal, state, and local taxes on the Award and may be issued an IRS Form 1099 for the approximate retail value of the Award.
The Award is privately funded.
Questions
If you have any questions about the Contest or the Award, please email education@gilderlehrman.org.
General Conditions
All information submitted by each potential Award Winner (including without limitation name and other eligibility requirements) may be subject to verification by the Sponsor.
The Sponsor retains the right to disqualify an entrant if all Contest rules are not followed.
By entering the Contest, an entrant waives all right to, and agrees to indemnify and hold the Sponsor, Grantor, their employees, independent contractors, agents, members, directors, officers, trustees, board, donors, and other representatives harmless from any claim, liability, loss, damage (including punitive, incidental, and consequential damages), or expense (including attorneys’ fees) arising out of or in connection with: (i) any material submitted by the entrant that infringes any copyright, trademark, trade secret, trade dress, patent, or other intellectual property right of any person or defames any person or violates their rights of publicity or privacy; (ii) any misrepresentation made by the entrant in connection with the Contest; (iii) any non-compliance by the entrant with these Rules; and (iv) acceptance, possession, misuse or use of the Award, or participation in any Contest-related activity or participation in the Contest. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATIONS OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
The Sponsor and Grantor will not be responsible for: (i) late, incomplete, technically corrupted, damaged, not delivered, or incorrect entries; (ii) an entrant’s failure to receive notices due to entrant’s spam, junk e-mail, or other security settings or for entrants’ provision of incorrect or otherwise non-functioning contact information; (iii) technical, hardware, or software malfunctions, lost or unavailable network connections, or failed, incorrect, inaccurate, incomplete, garbled, or delayed electronic communications however caused and even if caused by any of Sponsors’ equipment, software, or other programming associated with or used in the Contest; (iv) by any error which may occur in the transmission, receipt, or processing of the entries or in the administration of the Contest; (v) any typographical, technological, or other error in the publishing of the offer, administration of the Contest, or announcement of the Award, (vi) unauthorized human intervention in the Contest; or (vii) injury or damage to persons or property which may be caused, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from participation in the Contest or acceptance of the Award.
In addition, the Sponsor and Grantor are not responsible for any injury or damage to an entrant’s or any other person’s computer related to or resulting from entering the Contest or downloading or printing any material for the Contest. Without limitation of the foregoing, everything on the website associated with the Contest is provided “as is” without warranty of any kind, either express or implied.
If, for any reason, the Sponsor is not capable of completing or running the Contest as planned, including without limitation by reason of suspected tampering, technological corruption, infection by virus, bug, worm or other malicious code, unauthorized human intervention, fraud, acts of God, strikes, terrorist acts, criminal acts of third parties, an insufficient number of qualified Contest entries, safety concerns, inability to obtain adequate insurance coverage, force majeure or technical or mechanical failures of any sort, or any other causes which, in the Sponsor and Grantor’s consensus opinion, corrupts, threatens, or impairs the administration, security, safety, fairness, integrity, or proper conduct of the Contest, the Sponsor reserves the right to modify or suspend the Contest at the Sponsor and Grantor’s consensus discretion. The Sponsor and Grantor assume no liability and are not responsible for, and entrants hereby forever waive any rights to any claim in connection with, errors and/or ambiguity: (i) in the Contest; (ii) in any related advertising or promotions of the Contest; and/or (iii) in these Rules. In the event of any ambiguity(s) or error(s) in these Rules, the Sponsor and Grantor reserve the right to modify these Rules for clarification purposes or to correct any such error(s) without materially affecting the terms and conditions of the Contest.
An entrant agrees that: (i) any and all disputes, claims, controversies, and causes of action arising out of or connected with the Contest or the Award shall be resolved individually, without resort to any form of class action; (ii) any and all disputes, claims, controversies, and causes of action arising out of or in connection with the Contest shall be resolved by binding arbitration before a single arbitrator in New York City, in accordance with the rules of JAMS, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof; (iii) any and all claims, judgments, and awards shall be limited to actual out-of-pocket costs incurred, including costs associated with entering the Contest, but in no event attorneys’ fees; and (iv) under no circumstances will entrant be permitted to obtain awards for, and entrant hereby waives all rights to claim, injunctive relief, indirect, punitive, incidental and consequential damages and any other damages, other than for actual out-of-pocket expenses, and any and all rights to have damages multiplied or otherwise increased. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATIONS OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. All issues and questions concerning the construction, validity, interpretation, and enforceability of these Rules, or the rights and obligations of the entrant and Sponsors in connection with the Contest, shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York, without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law rules (whether of the State of New York or any other jurisdiction), which would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of New York.
Any attempt by an entrant to deliberately damage the website associated with the Contest, submit malicious code, or undermine the legitimate operation of the Contest may be in violation of criminal and civil laws and should such an attempt be made, Sponsors reserve the right to seek remedies and damages (including attorneys’ fees) from any such entrant to the fullest extent of the law, including criminal prosecution.