Answer:
Explanation:Last Friday was a big day for voting rights in the United States. Federal courts struck down restrictive voting laws in Kansas and Wisconsin. And in a particularly important decision, the fourth circuit court of appeals delivered a stinging rebuke to North Carolina’s egregious vote suppression law. As the court observed, North Carolina legislators didn’t even try to hide the core purpose of the law: to stop African Americans from getting to the polls.
The politics of North Carolina are a perfect illustration of what led the Republican party to nominate Trump. The southern state, which has seen a large influx of people into its prosperous urban centers, is becoming more liberal – Barack Obama carried the state in 2008, and Mitt Romney carried it by only two points in 2012. North Carolina Republicans have not reacted to these trends, however, by becoming more moderate.
The clash between a Republican party running at full speed to the right while its population was trending to the left led North Carolina to pass a particularly terrible anti-voting law. In 2013, a bare majority of the US supreme court gave the green light to North Carolina by striking down a provision of the Voting Rights Act that required states, such as North Carolina, that had a history of discrimination to preclear electoral law changes with the Department of Justice.
In addition to a requirement that voters show particular forms of ID, the state eliminated Sunday voting, narrowed the window for early voting and eliminated same-day vote registration and early registration for 16- and 17-year olds. Voter ID requirements at least have the superficial appearance of addressing the integrity of elections, although in practice the justification is bogus. But most of the provisions in North Carolina’s attack on the right to vote had no purpose, even in theory, other than to make it harder for people to vote.
The statement which best described the Mexican history after independence was that small groups have always held power and wealth, while many people remained poor - D.
This is also true and as is the case in a lot of countries, smaller gatherings of people held great power and were able control this power.
Answer:
actually yes
Explanation:
in the old ages the Jews basically ruled Jerusalem (hence the name) and people hated them for the way they treated the people there, not their religion. When Hitler came to power many years later after they had lost the rule of Jerusalem people started hating them for the way they horded money and their religion. Now people just hate them for their religion.
So yes antisemitism has changed over time.
The main event that ended the Russian monarchy was the February Revolution. It was a spontaneous demonstration against the Tsar's government which turned riotous and spread to many other cities. The Tsar tried to order police and military forces to put down the riots, but they refused to obey him. In fact, many soldiers even joined in the riots.
Tsar Nicholas realized that the only way to end the violence was to abdicate his throne. He signed the abdication papers in March 1917 ending 300 years of the Romanov monarchy. The Provisional Government was instituted to govern the country until a Constituent Assembly could be seated, but the Provisional Government was overthrown in the October Revolution also known as the Bolshevik Revolution. The Bolshevik Revolution is not the revolution which ended the Russian monarchy, because the monarchy had already ended 8 months earlier.
<span>In addition, the Tsar and his family were not killed during the Russian Revolution. They were kiled by the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War in July 1918, nine months after the October Revolution had ended.</span>
