In the landmark case, Shelby County V. Holder (2013),

 

 

Instructions
In the landmark case, Shelby County V. Holder (2013), the US Supreme Court struck down major provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act relating to the procedure of “pre-clearance.” Since the ruling, states like Texas, Georgia and North Carolina, can now make changes to their voting laws, such as photo ID requirements, that do not need to be pre-approved by the federal government. Supporters of this ruling say the pre-clearance rules are no longer needed and besides, states need new laws to protect against voter fraud. Opponents say that these laws are just a new form of voter suppression tactics that hit the poor and racial minorities hardest. Based on this, your paper must meet the following content, format and submission requirements:

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS:

Describe the provisions (parts) of the Voting Rights Act that discuss the issue of “pre-clearance”.
Compare and contrast the views of those who think the federal government should have the power of “pre-clearance” and those who do not. Include at least THREE points of comparison.
Using evidence from any election in 2014 or later, argue whether or not you believe the federal government should have the power of “pre-clearance” relating to election laws. Include at least THREE reasons and/or examples to make your point.

Sample Solution

Oregon and Tennessee and revealing a proposition to make open school allowed to New York inhabitants under a particular pay level – with one curve. In contrast to Oregon and Tennessee, which make a two-year training at the junior college free, Governor Cuomo has extended the idea to most four-year state schools in New York. Free school – How lucky for New York inhabitants. Or then again would it be advisable for me to state, how tragic?
New York inhabitants will currently have the capacity to run in huge numbers to foundations that are now packed and produce troubling outcomes. The default rate on understudy credits at New York state funded colleges and universities was 9.3% for the 2012 companion. What’s more, the finish rate at New York junior colleges is just 20.6%.
So how about we perceive how this will function. We will urge understudies to go to a school where just a little measure of entering understudies procure a degree. What’s more, obviously, we won’t probably prevent understudies from taking out an understudy advance. Probably not! The expense of participation as determined by the school and directed by the U.S. Bureau of Education far exceeds educational cost and incorporates food and lodging, transportation and the sky is the limit from there. Furthermore, schools can’t disallow understudies from obtaining more than the expense of educational cost. The outcome? Understudies will enlist at a “free school” and obtain cash for the expense of participation. At that point, they will drop out and have an understudy advance – yet no aptitudes. Splendid.

Then, is the “free school” truly free? Obviously not. State funded training is s

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.