When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Shelby County v. Holder - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder

    Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), is a landmark decision [1] of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and subsection (b) of Section 4 ...

  3. List of jurisdictions subject to the special provisions of ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jurisdictions...

    The preclearance requirements for these "bailed in" jurisdictions were unaffected by the Supreme Court's ruling in Shelby County v. Holder. The following jurisdictions have been bailed into coverage under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act: [5] [54] Thurston County, Nebraska [55] Escambia County, Florida [56] Alexander County, Illinois [57]

  4. Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

    [16] [11] The ruling interpreted the "totality of circumstances" language of Section 2 to mean that it does not generally prohibit voting rules that have disparate impact on the groups that it sought to protect, including a rule blocked under Section 5 before the Court inactivated that section in Shelby County v. Holder.

  5. Opinion: Yes, there is voter suppression in Tennessee. Here's ...

    www.aol.com/opinion-yes-voter-suppression...

    In 2013, the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder weakened the Voting Rights Act, leading to a wave of voter suppression laws. At least 19 states, including Tennessee, passed ...

  6. John Lewis Voting Rights Act - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Voting_Rights_Act

    On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court struck down section 4(b) by a 5–4 decision in the case of Shelby County v. Holder. The court found Section 4(b) of the VRA unconstitutional because it was outdated. Invalidating section 4(b) left the federal pre-clearance requirement in Section 5 without a formula to determine what ...

  7. Voter identification laws in the United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_identification_laws...

    Holder: Energizing, Educating and Empowering Voters," June Gary Hopps and Dorcas Davis Bowles argue that by eliminating section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Shelby County v. Holder decreased the participation of minorities and that "The participation of these groups is not only important because of the implications for ensuring civil rights, but ...

  8. Opinion - The supremely partisan court of Chief Justice Roberts

    www.aol.com/news/opinion-supremely-partisan...

    The court was partisan when it decided Bush v. Gore, Shelby County v. Holder, ... But only five justices thought that Congress could only enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment through a statute ...

  9. Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lost Her Battle to Save Voting Rights ...

    www.aol.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-lost-her...

    Activists distribute pro-voting rights placards outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 27, 2013, as the Court prepares to hear Shelby County vs Holder. Justice Ginsburg’s ...