In the case of Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Supreme Court ruled that
a. majority-minority districts were not a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
b. majority-minority districts were unconstitutional.
c. minority-dominated congressional districts were a violation of the Tenth Amendment.
d. minority-dominated congressional districts were not a violation of the Tenth Amendment.
e. redrawing voting district lines from time to time is constitutional.
Question 2
A majority-minority district is
a. a congressional district designed to include so many members of minority groups so that the opportunity for a minority candidate to be elected is greatly improved.
b. a congressional district designed to include so many members of majority groups so that the opportunity for a majority candidate to be elected is greatly improved.
c. a congressional district designed to make it very difficult for a minority candidate to avoid a run-off election.
d. a congressional district designed to make it very difficult for a majority candidate to avoid a run-off election.
e. a process of redrawing voting district lines from time to time and adjusting the number of representatives allotted each state.
The violation of mores is a serious matter. In this case, it is serious enough that security at an ...
A typical calibration code sticker on the case of a controller. The information on the sticker is ...
Using a bright light makes seeing where the smoke is coming from easier. In this case, smoke was ...
Case Study of a Midlatitude Cyclone
The Impact of Cross-Ethnic Friendships on Minority Students’ Well-Being
A case of breast cancer