The National Union Catalog, Pre-1956 Imprints
Author:
Publisher:
Published: 1979
Total Pages: 712
ISBN-13:
DOWNLOAD EBOOKRead and Download eBook Full
Author:
Publisher:
Published: 1979
Total Pages: 712
ISBN-13:
DOWNLOAD EBOOKAuthor: New York Public Library. Economic and Public Affairs Division
Publisher:
Published: 1972
Total Pages: 706
ISBN-13:
DOWNLOAD EBOOKAuthor: Ellen C. Kearns
Publisher: Greenwood Press
Published: 1999
Total Pages: 1756
ISBN-13: 9781570181085
DOWNLOAD EBOOKAuthor: Paul Mason
Publisher:
Published: 2020
Total Pages: 804
ISBN-13: 9781580249744
DOWNLOAD EBOOKAuthor: Library of Congress
Publisher:
Published: 1897
Total Pages: 246
ISBN-13:
DOWNLOAD EBOOKAuthor: C. Albert White
Publisher:
Published: 1983
Total Pages: 794
ISBN-13:
DOWNLOAD EBOOKAuthor:
Publisher:
Published: 2006
Total Pages: 300
ISBN-13:
DOWNLOAD EBOOK"Formerly known as the International Citation Manual"--p. xv.
Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Patents
Publisher:
Published: 1909
Total Pages: 42
ISBN-13:
DOWNLOAD EBOOKAuthor:
Publisher:
Published: 1990
Total Pages: 42
ISBN-13:
DOWNLOAD EBOOKAuthor: Kevin J. Coleman
Publisher: CreateSpace
Published: 2015-01-02
Total Pages: 32
ISBN-13: 9781505554328
DOWNLOAD EBOOKThe Voting Rights Act (VRA) was successfully challenged in a June 2013 case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder. The suit challenged the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 5 of the VRA, under which certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting-mostly in the South-were required to "pre-clear" changes to the election process with the Justice Department (the U.S. Attorney General) or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The preclearance provision (Section 5) was based on a formula (Section 4) that considered voting practices and patterns in 1964, 1968, or 1972. At issue in Shelby County was whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority when it reauthorized the VRA in 2006-with the existing formula-thereby infringing on the rights of the states. In its ruling, the Court struck down Section 4 as outdated and not "grounded in current conditions." As a consequence, Section 5 is intact, but inoperable, unless or until Congress prescribes a new Section 4 formula.