The Supreme Court was affirming the point that states (not the federal government) should be in charge of the voting procedures in their states.The Supreme Court decision you're referring to, which invalidated pre-clearance conditions, was Shelby County v. Holder (2013). "Pre-clearance" meant that certain states, according to the Voting Rights Acts of 1965, had to get approval in advance from federal authorities for any changes they made to their state regulations regarding voting. That standard had been applied to several states because they had displayed discriminatory practice in their voting laws. The decision in Shelby County v. Holder held that the federal government could not keep applying that requirement on the basis of decades-old data.
I recently posted another answer on Shelby County v. Holder, which you can check out too. Read more on Brainly.com -
brainly.com/question/9069264#readmore
District court,Appeals court, and Supreme Court.
Answer:
Correct Answer:
d. was part of an attempt by the United States to acquire Cuba.
Explanation:
The 1854 Ostend Manifesto a document written in 1854 that described the rationale for the United States to purchase Cuba from Spain. And, also, the document was implying that, should Spain refuse US request, they will go to war over the island.
<em>Cuba's annexation had long been a goal of U.S. Southern States slaveholding expansionists due to their ambition of setting up a new territory for their slaves and slave business.</em>
The program calls on participants to use and improve B. technology.
<h3>What is technology?</h3>
Technology is the application of scientific knowledge to solve human problems.
Technology is also the manipulation of the environment for the practical needs of human beings.
The program cannot invite participants to use and improve television or temperature.
Thus, the program calls on participants to use and improve B. technology.
Learn more about technology at brainly.com/question/7788080
#SPJ2
well.... taxes * I have to right more then 30 letters