This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It looks like the editor(s) who summarized the majority decision abruptly stopped there since there hasn't been any summary of the disent yet. Looks to me like Section 1 of the disent is (according to Thomas) why constitutional avoidance can not be avoided, and Section 2 of the disent is why (also according to Thomas) section 5 of the VRA is unconsitutional. Jon (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
