Page values for "Voting Rights Act isn't obsolete"

Jump to navigation Jump to search

"_pageData" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
_creationDateDatetimeMarch 5, 2013 4:19:12 PM
_modificationDateDatetimeMarch 5, 2013 4:19:12 PM
_creatorStringYaron Koren
_fullTextSearchtext{{Item |author=The Baltimore Sun editorial board, |source=The Baltimore Sun |date=February 26, 2013 |url=http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-02-26/news/bs-ed-voting-20130226_1_photo-id-laws-minorities-voter-suppression |quote=Indeed, the Justice Department has used Section 5 thousands of times ov ...
_categoriesList of String, delimiter: |Items
_numRevisionsInteger1
_isRedirectBooleanNo
_pageNameOrRedirectStringVoting Rights Act isn't obsolete
_pageIDOrRedirectInteger8,415
_lastEditorStringYaron Koren
_pageIDInteger8,415
_pageNamePageVoting Rights Act isn't obsolete
_pageTitleString

Voting Rights Act isn't obsolete

_pageNamespaceInteger0

"Items" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
AuthorList of Page, delimiter: ,The Baltimore Sun editorial board
SourcePageThe Baltimore Sun
DateDateFebruary 26, 2013
URLURLhttp://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-02-26/news/bs-ed-voting-20130226_1_photo-id-laws-minorities-voter-suppression
QuoteTextIndeed, the Justice Department has used Section 5 thousands of times over the years to reject changes to voting law that would discriminate against minorities. Photo ID laws are just the latest example. There have been efforts to rewrite district lines, registration procedures and other rules that would have had the practical effect of reducing minority participation. Shouldn't this be an easy call for a Supreme Court? It certainly has been for lower courts, and it would require a truly activist judge to overturn a measure that had such a long history and such overwhelming support by Congress
SummaryWikitext

Voting Rights Act isn't obsolete by The Baltimore Sun editorial board (The Baltimore Sun, February 26, 2013) (view)

"Opinions" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeAllowed valuesValue
TopicPageShelby County v. Holder
Position_fragmentStringSupreme Court should strike down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
PositionPageShelby County v. Holder / Supreme Court should strike down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
Position_linkWikitext

Supreme Court should strike down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

StanceStringfor · mixed · againstagainst