Briefly explain how the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Republican Party of Minnesota v. White changed judicial elections
What will be an ideal response?
An ideal response would be:
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Republican Party of Minnesota v. Whitethat "announce clauses" violated judicial candidates' rights under the First Amendment. As a result, judges have felt freer to take stances on controversial political issues like the death penalty, same-sex marriage, or funding for education. This, in turn, has increased turnout in judicial elections.
You might also like to view...
The years of the Monroe presidency were dubbed the Era of Good Feelings because ______.
A. they were not interrupted by any armed conflict B. Monroe was reelected by acclamation and elected to a third term with no serious opposition C. they lacked any significant party conflict D. they represented the most robust economic situation ever experienced by this country
The Constitution prohibits _____ laws that retroactively criminalize conduct after the action has occurred
a. ex post facto b. habeas corpus c. bills of attainder d. tariff
The difference between a legal campaign donation and a bribe is
a. bribes specifically require official actions in return. b. campaign donations do not depend on getting influence. c. bribes are for larger amounts of money. d. negligible.
Which president epitomizes the persuasive presidency?
A)Bill Clinton B) Franklin Roosevelt C) Ronald Reagan D) Lyndon Johnson