Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Bolden (1980), held that racially discriminatory laws violated the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments only if the laws were enacted or maintained for a discriminatory purpose; thus, showing that a law simply had a discriminatory effect was insufficient to state a constitutional claim of discrimination. The Court further held that Section 2 ...
The Democratic National Committee asserted a set of Arizona election laws and policies were discriminatory towards Hispanics and Native Americans under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. While lower courts upheld the election laws, an en banc Ninth Circuit reversed the decision and found these laws to be in violation of section 2 of ...
Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. [53] All were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures after the Reconstruction period. [54] The laws were enforced until 1965. [55]
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that rejected a challenge from the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the United States (at the time, Nicholas Katzenbach). [1]
Prior to the 19 th Amendment, only men were enfranchised to vote Please remember that only men could vote in the United States or in any state until the 19th Amendment was ratified in August 1920.
The ruling by state Supreme Court Justice Maria Vazquez-Doles in Orange County declares that New York’s Voting Rights Act of 2022 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ...
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the states of Oregon, Texas, Arizona, and Idaho challenged the constitutionality of Sections 201, 202, and 302 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) Amendments of 1970 passed by the 91st United States Congress, and where John Mitchell was the respondent in his role as United States Attorney General. [1]
But voters rejected it in a 59% to 41% vote during the August 2022 primary election. Democrats and supporters of abortion rights view that as a referendum against any legislation on abortion.