Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP: 22–807: May 23, 2024: The District Court’s finding that race predominated in the design of District I in the Enacted Plan was clearly erroneous. Brown v. United States: 22–6389: May 23, 2024
At the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, arguments were held regarding the racial makeup of the 1st, 2nd and 5th districts. The plaintiffs asserted that the predominant factor in the adoption of the current district maps was race for all three districts, while the defendants asserted that party affiliation was the main factor during the redistricting process of ...
Following her graduation from law school, Hearn clerked for Justice Julius B. Ness of the South Carolina Supreme Court and then practiced law in Horry County, South Carolina. Prior to her service on the Supreme Court, Hearn was elected to the South Carolina Family Court and was the chief judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals. Hearn ...
What are South Carolina's abortion laws? The Center for Reproductive Rights made a post on Aug. 23, 2023, explaining and condemning the S.C. Supreme Court's decisions on abortion. On that date ...
South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the "total takings" test for evaluating whether a particular regulatory action constitutes a regulatory taking that requires compensation.
South Carolina is one of two states where the state legislature elects state court judges, including the justices on the state supreme court. [3] A ten-person committee (composed mostly of state legislators) called the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) winnows down the number of candidates to fill a judicial vacancy to three based on candidate qualifications.
In the last 13 months alone, the South Carolina DMV has denied the opportunity for voter registration to 17,564 South Carolinians who were 17 years old at the time but would have been 18 and ...
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]