Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act: An Approach to the Results Test

The fifteenth amendment\u27 guarantees that a citizen\u27s right to vote shall not depend on his or her race. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the Act)2 ended nearly a century of congressional acquiescence to obstruction and subversion of that guarantee by certain state and local governments. The Act was remarkably successful in curbing many race-oriented abuses of the electoral process. Despite this success, however, Congress chose to bolster the 1965 Act with the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982., The new legislation\u27s most significant feature was the revision of section 2, which contains the Act\u27s blanket prohibition against discriminatory voting procedures

Greater Greenville Regional Economic Scorecard, 2010

Community/Rural/Urban Development,

The Contribution of the Textile and Apparel Cluster to the South Carolina Economy

Community/Rural/Urban Development,

Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the Cliffs Communities on the Upstate Region of the Carolinas

Community/Rural/Urban Development,

South Carolina's Textile and Apparel Industries: An Analysis of Trends in Traditional and Emerging Sectors

Community/Rural/Urban Development,

Greater Greenville Regional Economic Scorecard March 2008

Community/Rural/Urban Development,

Greater Greenville Regional Economic Scorecard, 2009

Community/Rural/Urban Development,

Scientific names of organisms : attribution, rights, and licensing

© The Author(s), 2014. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in BMC Research Notes 7 (2014): 79, doi:10.1186/1756-0500-7-79.As biological disciplines extend into the ‘big data’ world, they will need a names-based infrastructure to index and interconnect distributed data. The infrastructure must have access to all names of all organisms if it is to manage all information. Those who compile lists of species hold different views as to the intellectual property rights that apply to the lists. This creates uncertainty that impedes the development of a much-needed infrastructure for sharing biological data in the digital world. The laws in the United States of America and European Union are consistent with the position that scientific names of organisms and their compilation in checklists, classifications or taxonomic revisions are not subject to copyright. Compilations of names, such as classifications or checklists, are not creative in the sense of copyright law. Many content providers desire credit for their efforts. A ‘blue list’ identifies elements of checklists, classifications and monographs to which intellectual property rights do not apply. To promote sharing, authors of taxonomic content, compilers, intermediaries, and aggregators should receive citable recognition for their contributions, with the greatest recognition being given to the originating authors. Mechanisms for achieving this are discussed