About: South Carolina v. Katzenbach     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FSouth_Carolina_v._Katzenbach

South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that rejected a challenge from the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the United States (at the time, Nicholas Katzenbach). The preclearance provisions were ruled constitutional and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enforced in full.

AttributesValues
rdf:type
rdfs:label
  • South Carolina v. Katzenbach (en)
rdfs:comment
  • South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that rejected a challenge from the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the United States (at the time, Nicholas Katzenbach). The preclearance provisions were ruled constitutional and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enforced in full. (en)
foaf:name
  • (en)
  • South Carolina v.Nicholas Katzenbach, Attorney General (en)
dcterms:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
sameAs
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
JoinMajority
  • Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, Fortas (en)
LawsApplied
oyez
ParallelCitations
USPage
USVol
ArgueYear
case
  • South Carolina v. Katzenbach, (en)
courtlistener
DecideDate
DecideYear
findlaw
fullname
  • South Carolina v. Nicholas Katzenbach, Attorney General (en)
Holding
  • The Voting Rights Act of 1965 does not violate the states' constitutional ability to implement and control elections. Therefore, it is a constitutionally valid exercise of congressional power for the effectuation of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. (en)
justia
Litigants
  • South Carolina v. Katzenbach (en)
majority
  • Warren (en)
loc
has abstract
  • South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that rejected a challenge from the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the United States (at the time, Nicholas Katzenbach). The preclearance provisions were ruled constitutional and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enforced in full. (en)
ArgueDateA
ArgueDateB
Concurrence/Dissent
  • Black (en)
cornell
googlescholar
QuestionsPresented
  • Does the Voting Rights Act of 1965 violate the states' constitutional ability to implement and control elections? (en)
prov:wasDerivedFrom
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 54 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software