Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
The papers would have to be filed six months in advance of voting, and the voter had to provide a copy of that certificate at the time of voting. This measure was expected to decrease the number of legal voters. [22] In the 1965 Supreme Court decision Harman v. Forssenius, the Court unanimously found such measures unconstitutional. It declared ...
Iowa restores the voting rights of felons who completed their prison sentences. [59] Nebraska ends lifetime disenfranchisement of people with felonies but adds a five-year waiting period. [62] 2006. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was extended for the fourth time by President George W. Bush, being the second extension of 25 years. [64]
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).
A pro-Trump Minnesota judge declared a new state law restoring voting rights for convicted felons unconstitutional, drawing a sharp rebuke from Minnesota's attorney general and secretary of state ...
Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act required states and local governments with histories of racial discrimination in voting to submit all changes to their voting laws or practices to the federal government for approval before they could take effect, a process called "preclearance". By 1976, sixty-three percent of Southern blacks were ...
That opinion also found unconstitutional a 2005 state law, known as LB53, that restored the voting rights of people with felony convictions two years after they complete terms of their sentences.
Federal courts ultimately declared the law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn't been enforced since 2018. Kansas provides a cautionary tale about how pursuing an election concern that in fact is extremely rare risks disenfranchising a far greater number of people who are legally entitled to vote.