Check Understanding In invalidating preclearance provisions, what larger point was the Supreme Court making about voting rights?

1 answer:

8 0

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

You might be interested in

What is your definition of the fifth amendment?

shtirl [24]

The right to remain silent.

4 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Did workers prospet in the same way that major companies did during the war

olganol [36]

yes they believed they were not getting everything that they deserved they believed they were being mistreated in many ways like not enough food and money and the working conditions were unbarable

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Shay's Rebellion was a protest held by _______________ in Massachusetts.

skelet666 [1.2K]

The answer is farmers

3 0

4 years ago

Would the U.S government be better if it were a more direct democracy?

blagie [28]

Answer:

I don't know...call me crazy, but I don't think this would be such a bad idea (at least sometime in the future.) With the advent of the internet, there really is no reason why people can't have more input on legislation. Remember, congressmen act as representatives of the people for logistical reasons. Were voting allowed via internet, mail, or permanent polling places, the logistical roadblocks are reduced.

This country has an annoying quality where senators and representatives are elected and then inject their own personality into their voting. They are supposed to represent the people of their district. If 60% of the people in their district feel a certain way about an issue, why is the congressman/woman allowed to vote a different way? Why do their personal beliefs really matter at all? They are supposed to be voting the way their district wants regardless of what they personally believe.

I know, I know, things can be horribly complicated and the average person can't possibly understand all the issues they are voting on, but last I checked their is no intelligence requirement to be in the government...many people in governement now are dumb as a box of rocks. They don't have to be smart to be elected, they have to be personable and have good advisors working in the background.

Imagine being able to directly vote on education issues, warfare issues, and being able to prioritize budget items. Instead of blaming the morons in congress we would only be able to blame ourselves when things went horribly wrong. Of course, some form of standing governement would still be needed for a lot of reasons.

Again, I know the technology is not hot enough right now to provide the secruity that would be needed, etc, but it won't be long...

3 0

3 years ago

How did settlers of ancient Greece adapt to the climate and geography of the mountainous regions?

vampirchik [111]

Answer:

A)They used the mountains for raising sheep and goats.

Explanation:

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers