Answer:
A. State laws can ensure fair access for voters to registration and polling places
Explanation:
It is Option A. because when State laws ensure fair access for voters to registration and polling places, every eligible voters or electorates will be given adequate chance and opportunity to vote whoever they believe will represent their interest without biases to another candidate or party. Hence, the right answer is Option A.
It is not option B, because when State laws prohibit political speech if it is considered controversial, that equates to suppression of FREEDOM OF SPEECH, which will eventually results to campaigns being restricted. Thus, this action by the State will not support a fair election process.
It is not Option C. because when State laws restrict voting if the government has a good reason, then some electorates will be disenfranchised, and the election result, will not show the true reflection of the people's will. Thus, this action by the state will not support a fair election process.
It is not Option D. because when State laws benefit some people and hurt others to keep an election fair, those the laws hurt, will be disenfranchised, and that will show biases from the government towards a particular candidate or party over others. Thus, this action by the state will not support a fair election process.
Answer:
It might have to do with someone's religion. For example in the Catholics religion it goes against their religion to be homosexual
Explanation:
In the mid-1800s, the country was divided into 3 sections: North, South, and West. The North's economy was dominated by manufacturing and industry. The South's economy was primarily agriculture with a heavy focus on growing cash crops like cotton, tobacco, rice, and indigo. The West's economy was a mixture of manufacturing and agriculture. The different economies would drive wedges between the different sections and result in different societies and values.
The Wilmot Proviso pointed to trouble ahead in the debate over the expansion of slavery.
In 1846, Congressman David Wilmot of Pennsylvania introduced the proviso as an amendment to an appropriations bill in connection with the peace treaty being negotiated with Mexico. His amendment stipulated that any territory gained from Mexico would be free, not allowing slavery. Wilmot's amendment passed in the House of Representatives, but was unable to get approval in the Senate. The high-intensity debate over slavery and the expansion of slavery was evidenced by how things went with the "Wilmot Proviso."
The welfare state of the United Kingdom comprises expenditures by the government of the United Kingdom intended to improve health, education, employment and social security. The British system has been classified as a liberal welfare state system.
