Answer:
The statement is false.
Explanation:
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a U.S. federal law designed to ensure the equal participation of minorities, especially African Americans, in US elections.
Specifically, it abolished discriminatory illiteracy tests for potential voters, banned Gerrymandering if it discriminated against minorities, centralized federal voter registration in areas where less than 50% of the population were registered voters, and gave the U.S. Department of Justice various control over the Electoral law in areas where African Americans make up more than five percent of the population.
The debates surrounding the Voting Rights Act coincide with the culmination of the civil rights movement and the Selma-to-Montgomery marches. Martin Luther King, the then leading African-American civil rights activist, already called for such a law at a meeting with President Lyndon B. Johnson in December 1964. The president was positive about the project, but King said that such a law could not be implemented politically so shortly after the Civil Rights Act to end segregation. Johnson, who was recently re-elected with an overwhelming majority, initially wanted to focus on other areas such as poverty reduction and health care in his Great Society social reform reform project. After the events in Selma, however, he changed his attitude and assured King that he wanted to enforce the electoral law as soon as possible.
The House of Representatives passed the law on August 3, 1965 and the Senate on August 4. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it on August 6 at a ceremony at the Capitol, which was attended by numerous African-American civil rights activists such as Martin Luther King.
What's the context?
The industrial revolution
Even further back...
The agricultural revolution
Trade?
Communication?
Travel?
Exploration?
The Equal Protection clause is the last part of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the USA. The full amendment reads:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
All these rulings have actually had the effect of reinforcing the legal protections of very different minority groups (Hispanics, women, LGBTs). The SCOTUS has ruled that these protections apply both a the federal and the state level since according to the Constitution all states must ensure equal protection of the laws for all citizens born or naturalized in the United States. The court clearly considers these issues as relevant to everyday citizens.
Therefore, the correct answer is D. It has interpreted equal protection as applying to different groups of people.
An indentured servant was someone who would pay for his journey to the US or for his debt by serving the person who helped him and after a while the debt would be over and the person would be free. The person would have all rights like regular people. Slaves had no rights at all and were not even observed as people and their slavery would never end unless the owner specifically freed them. Slavery was not contractual unlike indentured serviture.
