Zall vs Pennsylvania: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(BRENG) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{retitle|''{{PAGENAME}}''}} | {{retitle|''{{PAGENAME}}''}} | ||
'''''Zall vs Pennsylvania''''' was a [[Supreme Court]] case in which a woman who had been turned away from a [[polling station]] because she hadn't been able to produce a [[ | '''''Zall vs Pennsylvania''''' was a [[Supreme Court]] case in which a woman who had been turned away from a [[polling station]] because she hadn't been able to produce a [[driver's license]] appealed against [[voting|voter]] ID laws. | ||
The [[NAACP]] took up her case, and it went to the Supreme Court, where it was one of the tightest decisions ever: Justices [[Gibbons (Head of State)|Gibbons]] and [[Knox (Head of State)|Knox]] abstained, and with a 4-3 vote, the Court ruled that voter ID laws and laws restricting felons' rights to vote were unconstitutional. | The [[NAACP]] took up her case, and it went to the Supreme Court, where it was one of the tightest decisions ever: Justices [[Gibbons (Head of State)|Gibbons]] and [[Knox (Head of State)|Knox]] abstained, and with a 4-3 vote, the Court ruled that voter ID laws and laws restricting felons' rights to vote were unconstitutional. | ||
Revision as of 04:43, 16 October 2019
Zall vs Pennsylvania was a Supreme Court case in which a woman who had been turned away from a polling station because she hadn't been able to produce a driver's license appealed against voter ID laws.
The NAACP took up her case, and it went to the Supreme Court, where it was one of the tightest decisions ever: Justices Gibbons and Knox abstained, and with a 4-3 vote, the Court ruled that voter ID laws and laws restricting felons' rights to vote were unconstitutional.
Though the case went largely unreported in the United Kingdom, it had large implications for politics in the United States, and Matt Nelson won the election for President with a campaign focused on new-voters. (PROSE: Head of State)
