1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Trava [24]
3 years ago
11

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electo

rs for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax."—Twenty-fourth Amendment
What was the effect of this amendment?

A. It stopped states from preventing former slaves and poor people from voting.

B. It stopped any state from disallowing women to vote in national elections.

C. It allowed any state to charge a fee to someone who wished to vote.

D. It allowed states to limit who could vote by age, gender, or race.
History
1 answer:
mote1985 [20]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

The response is Option A: it stopped states from preventing former slaves and poor people from voting.

Explanation:

The Twenty-fourth Amendment prevented states from charging poll taxes in the primaries and federal elections. Poll taxes were an indirect way that many states used to continue restricting the vote of citizens who were former slaves or poor because they could not afford the poll tax and so they were much less likely to vote in the elections. This was upheld by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1937 that allowed Georgia to continue instituting a poll tax. The Twenty-fourth Amendment was instituted to address this power that states had to continue excluding voters. It was passed by Congress on August 27, 1962 and ratified January 23, 1964. Two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court, extended this to state elections as well by invoking the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause in the case called Harper v. Virginia Board of Electors. It was no longer allowed to charge poll taxes in state elections either.

You might be interested in
Did the Spanish Help or Hurt?
lukranit [14]

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Although there are no options attached we can say the following.

Did the Spanish Help or Hurt?

Well, it all depends on the perspective.

From the European perspective, the Spanish helped by evangelizing the Native Indians into the Catholic church principles and in offering education because the Spaniards considered the Indians as ignorant, primitive people.

On the other hand, in the Mexican and Latin American perspectives, the Spanish hurt so much.

The Spaniards were fortunate in the act that the Aztecas believed they were their gods coming back to fulfill the prophecies, and because of that the Aztecs welcomed them with an open hand and open doors.

The Spaniards were greedy people that only ambitioned richness for them and the Spanish crown, and they did what they knew best, kill and conquer.

The Spanish conquered Mesoamerica and instilled New Spain More than helping the Indians what the Spanish really wanted was to exploit the many raw materials and natural resources of the Americas. And exploit they did. They also tried to disappear the culture, traditions, beliefs, and religion of the Indians. Furthermore, they brought European diseases that almost wipe out 80n% of the Indian population. Diseases such as chickenpox, smallpox, malaria, influenza, and cholera.

So we could say they hurt more than what they helped.

4 0
3 years ago
At its most basic level how was feudalism chracterized by historians
Lisa [10]

i need the question to the question is really hard if u ask me

6 0
2 years ago
How did Di Xin's leadership play a role in the decline of the Shang Dynasty?
navik [9.2K]

Answer: He didn't provide good structure. He also didn't comply to the needs of the people. The people were unhappy with the government so the government declined.

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
What was an effect of the land act of 1851
nydimaria [60]

Answer:

it made it more difficult for Californios to hold on to their land

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did the relationship between the U.S. and the Soviet Union change after WWII?
Pepsi [2]
U.S.-Soviet<span> Alliance, 1941–1945. Although </span>relations between<span> the </span>Soviet Union<span>and the </span>United States<span> had been strained in the years before </span>World War II<span>, the </span>U.S.-Soviet<span> alliance of 1941–1945 </span>was<span> marked by a great degree of cooperation and </span>was<span> essential to securing the defeat of Nazi Germany.

i know this cause i took it 2 years ago so yea hope this helped
=)

</span>
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • The main goal of human relations is to
    14·1 answer
  • Where did the killing of abraham lincoln take place?
    7·2 answers
  • 3.
    5·2 answers
  • How did city-states in what is now Italy become so powerful?
    15·1 answer
  • Germany’s reparation payments after world war i caused
    7·2 answers
  • True or false?<br> The Celts lived in Brazil<br> 3,000 years ago.
    14·2 answers
  • This region of World War I included . . .
    14·1 answer
  • The relationship<br> between economic growth and Economic<br> development
    12·1 answer
  • Why<br> were the Greek city-<br> states unprepared<br> for an attack by<br> Philip ll ?
    14·1 answer
  • Read the excerpt from President Grant's Inaugural Address. Pick one issue that Grant discusses in this passage. What challenges
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!