Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A new bill, SB 1, was passed into law on September 7, 2021. The law expands the voting hours as proposed in the earlier SB7, but critics stated this reduced voting hours in the state's most populous areas. The law also bans drive-thru and overnight early voting, and introduced identification requirements for absentee voting.
The American Civil Liberties Union asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 27 to review the issue by arguing that rejecting ballots for an “immaterial error” would violate the 1964 Civil Rights ...
The federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 was a critical tool in addressing racial discrimination in voting, particularly in southern states. Its most potent provision was the preclearance requirement under Section 5, which mandated that certain jurisdictions with histories of discrimination obtain federal approval before changing voting laws ...
According to the Voting Rights Lab, only 188 of those bills have become law, and some of them do expand access to the ballot box. All three states passed wide-ranging new laws impacting absentee ...
The coverage formula, contained in Section 4(b) of the Act, determines which states are subject to preclearance. As enacted in 1965, the first element in the formula was whether, on November 1, 1964, the state or a political subdivision of the state maintained a "test or device" restricting the opportunity to register and vote.
A split Kansas Supreme Court ruling last week issued in a lawsuit over a 2021 election law found that voting is not a fundamental right listed in the state Constitution's Bill of Rights. The ...
The statute affirmation allows the voters to collect signatures to place on ballot a question asking the state citizens to affirm a standing state law. If a majority vote to affirm the law, the state legislature will be barred from ever amending the law, and it can be amended or repealed only if approved by a majority of state citizens in a ...
The Court ruled that the law would be blocked until further court hearings could take place and their language seemed to indicate that the law very likely violates the state constitution.