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
Answer:
hence, In 1777, the Massachusetts legislature announced that the next legislature would draft a new constitution which it would then submit to the voters for approval. ... The legislature's proposed constitution was submitted to, and rejected by, the voters in 1778.
Explanation: That showed a strong impact on the constitution and how it would be written.
Please say thanks and 5 stars i appreciate it.
<span>Analyzing the effectiveness of a public policy.</span>
He wanted to protect everyone and didnt want any one to leave
It would be option 2. If I'm wrong, let me know
