Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Research also suggests negative campaigning introduces controversy and raises public awareness through additional news coverage. [4] Kyle Mattes and David P. Redlawsk in The Positive Case for Negative Campaigning show through surveys and experiments that negative campaigning may provide informational benefits for voters. Without negativity ...
Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. 200 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that license plates are government speech and are consequently more easily regulated/subjected to content restrictions than private speech under the First Amendment.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In Nixon v.Herndon (1927), the Court had struck down a Texas statute that prohibited blacks from participating in the Texas Democratic primary election.Very shortly after that decision, the Texas Legislature repealed the invalidated statute, declared that the effect of the Nixon decision was to create an emergency requiring immediate action, and replaced the old statute with a new one.
Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. [1] The Court refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering.
Negative campaigning against House GOP members has been largely by mail, text and digital strategies, Whetsell said. ... the Supreme Court ruled campaign spending is protected free speech and ...
Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954), was a landmark case, "the first and only Mexican-American civil-rights case heard and decided by the United States Supreme Court during the post-World War II period." [ 1 ] In a unanimous ruling, the court held that Mexican Americans and all other nationality groups in the United States have equal protection under ...
The Supreme Court confirmed the draft's authenticity the next day; at the same time, the Supreme Court's press release said that "it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case". [104] [105] [106] In response to the leak, Roberts said, "The work of the Court will not be affected in ...