Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1976 was the first bill to enshrine the constitutional right to vote in federal elections into law for U.S. citizens living overseas. This bill also established uniform absentee voting procedures for U.S. citizens living overseas in federal elections.
Katzenbach (1966), the Supreme Court held that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a constitutional method to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment. A few months later, on the thirteenth day of June, the Supreme Court held that section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was constitutional in the case of Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966).
Although the Twenty-sixth Amendment passed faster than any other constitutional amendment, about 17 states refused to pass measures to lower their minimum voting ages after Nixon signed the 1970 extension to the Voting Rights Act. [5] Opponents to extending the vote to youths questioned the maturity and responsibility of people at the age of 18.
Utah changes wording of their law and restores voting rights to all people who have completed their prison sentence for a felony. [62] Rhode Island restores voting rights for people serving probation or parole for felonies. [59] 2007. Florida restores voting rights for most non-violent people with felony convictions. [59] 2009
A number of civil rights organizations sued the state for violating the Voting Rights Act and gerrymandering with racial discrimination. On the Supreme Court, a 5-4 majority agreed.
In 1888, a bill to amend the Constitution was introduced in Congress by Senator Henry Blair of New Hampshire to grant the District of Columbia voting rights in presidential elections, but it did not proceed. [5] [6] Theodore W. Noyes, a writer of the Washington Evening Star, published several stories in support of D.C. voting rights. Noyes also ...
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 result was a 39–33 vote in favor of the bill, but a cloture vote to end the filibuster required a two-thirds supermajority of 48 votes at the time, and so the bill was not brought to a vote. Those in favor of abolition of the poll tax considered a constitutional amendment after the 1946 defeat, but that idea did not advance either.