How did agricultural improvements contribute to population shifts in Georgia after World War II?

How did agricultural improvements contribute to population shifts in Georgia after World War II?

How did agricultural improvements contribute to population shifts in Georgia after World War II? a. The use of technology on farms led an increase in demand for skilled labor, causing substantial urban-to-rural migration.

Why was the 17th Amendment created?

When the House passed proposed amendments for the direct election of Senators in 1910 and 1911, they included a “race rider” meant to bar Federal intervention in cases of racial discrimination among voters. Over a year later, the House accepted the change, and on April 8, 1913, the resolution became the 17th amendment.

What was the decision in Reynolds v Sims?

In Reynolds v. Sims (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the legislative districts across states be equal in population.

What was the Supreme Court decision on redistricting?

A three-judge federal district court held that drawing congressional districts was a task assigned by the Constitution to state legislatures, subject to guidance by Congress, and not assigned to the courts.

What was the significance of the Supreme Court decision?

Significance: The court upheld a legislative redistricting plan in which the total deviation was 1.81 percent for the Senate and 7.83 percent for the House. This indicates that legislative plans with a total deviation of 10% or less are presumptively constitutional although 10 percent is not a safe harbor.

What was the effect of redistricting in Georgia?

Summary: Voters in Georgia’s Congressional District 5, which had three times the population of Congressional District 9, alleged that this imbalance denied them the full benefit of their right to vote.

What was the outcome of Ridge v Baldwin?

March 14, 1963 (Thursday) In the British courts, Ridge v Baldwin , a landmark case in the law of judicial review , was decided on appeal, holding that a public official cannot be dismissed without first being given notice of the grounds on which the decision was made, as well as an opportunity to be heard in his own defence.