An introduction to the comparison of martin luther king jr and malcolm x

Initially, the committee members were stalemated. The Supreme Court has not addressed whether such claims may be brought under Section 2, and lower courts have reached different conclusions on the issue.

Hall[76] the Supreme Court held that claims that minority votes are diluted by the small size of a governing body, such as a one-person county commissionmay not be brought under Section 2.

Originally set to expire byCongress repeatedly reauthorized the special provisions in recognition of continuing voting discrimination. The bill was next considered by the Rules Committeewhose chair, Howard W. The racial or language minority group "is sufficiently numerous and compact to form a majority in a single-member district "; The minority group is "politically cohesive" meaning its members tend to vote similarly ; and The "majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it The creation of this "results test" shifted the majority of vote dilution litigation brought under the Act from preclearance lawsuits to Section 2 lawsuits.

A2 In contrast, the Supreme Court has not addressed whether different protected minority groups can be aggregated to satisfy the Gingles preconditions as a coalition, and lower courts have split on the issue. In andCongress also expanded the reach of the coverage formula by supplementing it with new and trigger dates.

In Gingles, the Supreme Court split as to whether plaintiffs must prove that the majority racial group votes as a bloc specifically because its members are motivated to vote based on racial considerations and not other considerations that may overlap with race, such as party affiliation.

This means that plaintiffs cannot succeed on a submergence claim in jurisdictions where the size of the minority group, despite not being large enough to comprise a majority in a district, is large enough for its members to elect their preferred candidates with the help of "crossover" votes from some members of the majority group.

Strickland[63] the Supreme Court held that the first Gingles precondition can be satisfied only if a district can be drawn in which the minority group comprises a majority of voting-age citizens. Tuck D-VA publicly said he preferred H.

Congress responded by expanding Section 2 to explicitly ban any voting practice that had a discriminatory effect, regardless of whether the practice was enacted or operated for a discriminatory purpose.

To assuage concerns of liberal committee members that this provision was not strong enough, Katzenbach enlisted the help of Martin Luther King, Jr. Ashcroft[45] which established a broader test for determining whether a redistricting plan had an impermissible effect under Section 5 than assessing only whether a minority group could elect its preferred candidates.

A plurality of the Court reasoned that no uniform, non-dilutive "benchmark" size for a governing body exists, making relief under Section 2 impossible.

Voting Rights Act of 1965

Ramirez[80] held that felony disenfranchisement. For instance, Congress expanded the original ban on "tests or devices" to apply nationwide inand inCongress made the ban permanent. The committee eventually approved the bill on May 12, but it did not file its committee report until June 1.

A major contention concerned the poll tax provisions; the Senate version allowed the Attorney General to sue states that used poll taxes to discriminate, while the House version outright banned all poll taxes.

To help broker a compromise, Attorney General Katzenbach drafted legislative language explicitly asserting that poll taxes were unconstitutional and instructed the Department of Justice to sue the states that maintained poll taxes.

General provisions[ edit ] General prohibition of discriminatory voting laws[ edit ] Section 2 prohibits any jurisdiction from implementing a "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure Boldenwhich held that the general prohibition of voting discrimination prescribed in Section 2 prohibited only purposeful discrimination.

His statement alienated most supporters of H.The Voting Rights Act of is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.

It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the Civil Rights Movement on August 6,and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections.

Designed to. Nonviolent Organizing - Nonviolent Organizing Prominent leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King Jr.

are known all around the world for teaching and practicing nonviolence while fighting for human justice and peace.

Download
An introduction to the comparison of martin luther king jr and malcolm x
Rated 0/5 based on 88 review