Opponents of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 say the pre-clearance requirement has outlived its usefulness.
Hamer's stand inspired Dr. King's march in Selma, which brought about the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The nature of the cases has changed since the tumult of the early 1960s produced the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The suit seeks compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Voting Registration Act of 1993 and cites the equal protection clause in the Constitution.
CNN: Civil rights groups file suit over alleged Florida voter disenfranchisement
It is instructive to look back at history when Congress passed two landmark civil rights measures: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
It is no coincidence, she believes, that the fire was set just two days before thousands gathered to commemorate the Selma demonstrations that led to passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Complicating the process, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may require officials to draw the House district boundaries in such a way that some of the eight new seats have a majority Hispanic population.
In a recent case, a majority of the Justices applied a provision of the Voting Rights Act to reject part of a Texas redistricting plan that was found to hurt Hispanic voters.
Holder, that tests the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires state and local governments, primarily in the Deep South, with a history of discrimination to obtain "pre-clearance" from the Justice Department before making any changes affecting voting.
CNN: 48 years after MLK march, voting rights still vulnerable
Several decades later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 only came about because local activists, led by prominent leaders such as Rev.
The 1965 Voting Rights Act, the crown jewel of modern civil rights laws, revolutionized America.
Tell that to the citizens of the five Florida counties covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
And as a Harvard Law Review essay argues, Congress authorized preclearance -- Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act -- under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
Attorney General Eric Holder, the defendant in Shelby County's suit, told marchers that the South is far different than it was in 1965 but is not yet at the point where the most important part of the voting rights act can be dismissed as unnecessary.
The bench could also examine Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act - a provision that forces nine US states with a history of electoral discrimination to have all changes to voting rules first approved in Washington.
Holder, the case challenging Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Many consider the Voting Rights Act the most effective legislation of the civil-rights era, and even conservative justices acknowledged its historic role.
With the completion of oral arguments in the Voting Rights Act case, the Court has now entered the most contentious weeks of its year.
If it were ruled unconstitutional, they had warned, the very power and effect of the entire Voting Rights Act would crumble.
Rep. WESTMORELAND: The multilingual question is this, Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act says if you are physically impaired, if you are blind, or if you are not proficient in English, that you can bring an assistant with you to the poll.
So the question really is: To what extent do you back these various provisions of the Voting Rights Act?
Scalia's characterization of the Voting Rights Act was offensive, and it deserved to be national news.
Texas is required under the 1965 Voting Rights Act to secure federal approval of changes in its voting procedures.
In 2006, President George W. Bush signed a 25-year reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act that Congress passed with near-unanimity.
Their lawyers also argue those who are discriminated against could still file a lawsuit under other provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
Jakes, to promote something like the renewal of the Voting Rights Act?
Holder, a critical case about the future of the Voting Rights Act.
Attorneys for Forrester went to federal court in Trenton, New Jersey to argue that the Voting Rights Act was violated by the switch of Democratic candidates.
Justice Anthony Kennedy focused on what he considered the demeaning nature of the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirement, under which some localities must get approval in advance from Washington for changes to their voting laws.
应用推荐