Does Bumble have a gay-friendly version?
Yes, Bumble has a gay-friendly version. In same-gender matches, matches with two non-binary people, or matches between non-binary people and men, either person has the power to make the first move. Then, the other person has 24 hours to respond, or the connection expires. Furthermore, in same sex scenarios, either party can send the first message on Bumble. Bumble is known widely across the hetero world of dating apps for its verification efforts as well as having an etiquette policy around photos.
Introduction to the Voting Rights Act and its significance
States that previously needed federal approval for any changes in their voting KAWS figure were those states that had a history of discriminatory or unfair practices. These practices included things like literacy tests and other efforts to deter people from exercising their right to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevented any changes in voting laws in these states until they received federal approval through a process called preclearance.
The list of states that required preclearance varies depending upon the period of time, but generally included the Deep South, Alaska, Arizona, and parts of much larger states like California & New York. Preclearance is still required for some jurisdictions today where organizations have filed suit under Section 3 (b) of the VRA.
In addition to requiring federal approval for any changes to voting laws, the VRA also mandated kaws cartoon certain election procedures be adopted by all fifty states such as at least one day of early voting during a general election or allowing post-election audits when irregularities arise during an election cycle. Clear regulations ensure everyone has access to free and fair elections!
Explanation of the section of the Voting Rights Act that required federal approval for voting changes
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, also known as the «preclearance» requirement, was a critical provision that aimed to protect the voting rights of minority groups in the United States. This provision required certain states and jurisdictions to seek federal approval, or preclearance, before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices.
The states and jurisdictions covered by this preclearance requirement were determined based on their history of discriminatory voting practices and low voter turnout. Initially, the coverage formula included states and jurisdictions where literacy tests or other discriminatory practices were used as a prerequisite for voting, as well as those with low voter turnout in the 1964 or 1968 presidential elections.
Under Section 5, covered states and jurisdictions had to submit any proposed changes, such as redistricting plans, changes to voting procedures, or new voting laws, to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for approval. The purpose of this requirement was to ensure that any changes would not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters.
The DOJ or the court would review these proposed changes to determine if they would have a discriminatory impact on minority voting rights. They would assess factors such as the potential dilution of minority voting strength or the intent to discriminate. If the proposed changes were found to be discriminatory, they would be blocked from implementation.
The preclearance requirement served as a safeguard against any attempts to undermine the voting rights of minority groups. It aimed to prevent discriminatory voting practices from resurfacing in covered states and jurisdictions and to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their race or ethnicity, had equal access to the electoral process.
However, in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, struck down the coverage formula of Section 5, stating that it was based on outdated data and no longer accurately reflected the current state of voting discrimination. As a result, the preclearance requirement was effectively invalidated, and states and jurisdictions were no longer required to seek federal approval for voting changes.
This decision sparked debates about the continued need for federal oversight of voting practices and the potential impact on minority voting rights. Since then, various efforts have been made to restore or replace the preclearance requirement to ensure the protection of voting rights for all Americans.
Overview of the states that were previously subject to federal approval
Previously, certain states in the United States were required to obtain federal approval before making any changes to their voting laws or practices. This requirement was imposed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, specifically under Section 5, in order to prevent discriminatory voting practices that targeted minority communities.
The states that were subject to federal approval, also known as «preclearance,» were determined based on a formula outlined in the Voting Rights Act. This formula considered factors such as historical discrimination and low voter turnout among minority groups. The states covered by preclearance were mainly located in the southern region of the country, but also included some areas outside of the South.
The states that were previously subject to federal approval under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act included Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, as well as certain counties in California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota. These states and counties had to submit any proposed changes in their voting laws or practices to the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for approval before implementing them.
The purpose of requiring federal approval for these states was to ensure that any changes to voting laws or practices would not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters. This was particularly important in states with a history of racial discrimination and voter suppression, where minority communities had been disproportionately affected by restrictive voting measures.
However, in 2013, the Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder struck down the formula used to determine which states were subject to preclearance, effectively rendering Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act unenforceable. This decision led to changes in voting laws and practices in some of the previously covered states, as they were no longer required to obtain federal approval.
Since then, there have been ongoing debates and legal battles over voting rights and the need for federal oversight to ensure equal access to the ballot box. Some argue that the elimination of preclearance has resulted in the adoption of voting laws that disproportionately impact minority voters, while others believe that federal oversight is no longer necessary or that it infringes on states’ rights.
Overall, the states that were previously subject to federal approval for any changes in their voting laws or practices played a significant role in the history of voting rights in the United States. The Voting Rights Act aimed to protect the rights of minority voters and combat discriminatory practices, and although the preclearance requirement is no longer in effect, the fight for equal access to the voting booth continues.