Sentence examples for overturn section from inspiring English sources
Specifically, the court heard the case of Shelby County v. Holder, in which that Alabama county seeks to overturn Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which was passed in 1965.
Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a nonprofit group that opposes affirmative action and joined another friend-of-the-court brief urging the court to overturn Section Five, argued that eliminating the Section Five standard in considering legislative district lines could be a good thing.
The new media were ablaze on the evening of February 22 after U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli filed a brief in United States v. Windsor asking the Supreme Court to overturn Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Blum has been central to efforts to overturn Section Five, with his project also bringing a Texas case attempting to limit federal election oversight to the Supreme Court in 2009.
If they keep pushing for laws that make it harder for urban populations to vote in order to deter the unicorn of voter fraud - and if the five Republican-appointed justices also overturn Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act -- their political problem with Black and Latino voters will only worsen.
On Wednesday, Shelby County will ask the Supreme Court to overturn Section Five of the Voting Rights Act, a measure that civil rights advocates have called the "hammer" and "heart" of federal efforts to protect minority voting rights from a constantly-evolving series of suppressive tactics.
If Demand Progress is accurate in its interpretation of the soon-to-be introduced House version of PROTECT IP, it will effectively overturn sections of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that protect ISPs and websites from being held responsible for content posted by their users.
Overturning Section 4 is a good start.
The Shelby County decision overturned section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which required some Southern states with a history of racism to receive Department of Justice approval before changing voting laws.
It's actually a more insidious and potentially more enduring form of VRA destruction than vacating Section 5. Overturning Section 5 would be tantamount to suggesting that those targeted by a state for discrimination have no right to pre-emptively block that discrimination.
In his ruling, the chief justice remarked that the country has undergone a social transformation since the law was passed and that changing conditions may at some point justify overturning Section 5. Does this mean that the chief justice believes that the Constitution is a living document?
