Have the relevant third parties provided their consent? Do threats to compliance impair your independence? Are threats to compliance with the code at an acceptable level?
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Baker v. Carr (1962) held federal courts could review claims that a state's redistricting of electoral lines violates the Equal 14th Amendment Amendment to the Constitution.
About Equal Protection Clause
The United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment's first section contains the Equal Protection Clause. The article states that "neither shall any state deny to any individual within its authority the equal protection of laws." It came into force in 1868. It demands that the law treat people equally who are in similar circumstances. Civil Rights Act of 1866's equality provisions were a major driving force behind the inclusion of this paragraph.
To know more about Baker v. Carr:
brainly.com/question/29398317
#SPJ4
Answer:
D. Citizens analyze the actions and words of elected officials -> Officials are held to account when they misbehave.
Explanation:
An informed citizen can better hold officials accountable for their actions. They can raise issue thru media or even their own blogs today. A. also has merit in that citizens educate themselves on important issues, but that should help dictate plans politicians should take, not make politicians communicate plans easier. Also C. Citizens understand how to acquire information leads to citizens are more likely to know how to vote. If C. was slightly reworded then it may be best as in citizens educate themselves on important issues and this leads to citizens making more informed votes. Instead, C. just says citizens understand how to acquire info instead of educate on the issues, and then it says know how to vote (there is not one know how way to vote), but rather should have said make an informed vote.
