document_title: Philadelphia campaign

question_text: where did the armies meet for the first battle of the philadelphia campaign

text: Philadelphia campaign

text: Background[edit]

text: Following General William Howe's successful capture of New York City, and George Washington's successful actions at Trenton and Princeton, the two armies settled into an uneasy stalemate in the winter months of early 1777. While this time was punctuated by numerous skirmishes, the British army continued to occupy outposts at New Brunswick and Perth Amboy, New Jersey.

text: General Howe had proposed to George Germain, the British civilian official responsible for conduct of the war, an expedition for 1777 to capture Philadelphia, the seat of the rebellious Second Continental Congress. Germain approved his plan, although with fewer troops than Howe requested.[2] He also approved plans by John Burgoyne for an expedition to "force his way to Albany" from Montreal.[3] Germain's approval of Howe's expedition included the expectation that Howe would be able to assist Burgoyne, effecting a junction at Albany between the forces of Burgoyne and troops that Howe would send north from New York City.[4]

text: Howe decided by early April against taking his army overland to Philadelphia through New Jersey, as this would entail a difficult crossing of the broad Delaware River under hostile conditions, and it would likely require the transportation or construction of the necessary watercraft.[5] Howe's plan, sent to Germain on April 2, also effectively isolated Burgoyne from any possibility of significant support, since Howe would be taking his army by sea to Philadelphia, and the New York garrison would be too small for any significant offensive operations up the Hudson River to assist Burgoyne.[5]

text: Howe's evolving plans[edit]

text: Washington realized that Howe "certainly ought in good policy to endeavor to Cooperate with Genl. Burgoyne" and was baffled why he did not do so.[6] Washington at the time and historians ever since have puzzled over the reason Howe was not in place to come to the relief of General John Burgoyne, whose invasion army from Canada was surrounded and captured by the Americans in October. Historians agree that Lord Germain did a poor job in coordinating the two campaigns.[7] Following Howe's capture of New York and Washington's retreat across the Delaware, Howe on December 20, 1776 wrote to Germain, proposing an elaborate set of campaigns for 1777. These included operations to gain control of the Hudson River, expand operations from the base at Newport, Rhode Island, and take the seat of the rebel Continental Congress, Philadelphia. The latter Howe saw as attractive, since Washington was then just north of the city: Howe wrote that he was "persuaded the Principal Army should act offensively [against Philadelphia], where the enemy's chief strength lies."[8] Germain acknowledged that this plan was particularly "well digested", but it called for more men than Germain was prepared to provide.[9] After the setbacks in New Jersey, Howe in mid-January 1777 proposed operations against Philadelphia that included an overland expedition and a sea-based attack, thinking this might lead to a decisive victory over the Continental Army.[10] This plan was developed to the extent that in April Howe's army was seen constructing pontoon bridges; Washington, lodged in his winter quarters at Morristown, New Jersey, thought they were for eventual use on the Delaware River.[11] However, by mid-May Howe had apparently abandoned the idea of an overland expedition: "I propose to invade Pennsylvania by sea ... we must probably abandon the Jersies."[12]

text: Howe's decision to not assist Burgoyne may have been rooted in Howe's perception that Burgoyne would receive credit for a successful campaign, even if it required Howe's help; this would not help Howe's reputation, as the Philadelphia expedition would if it succeeded. Historian John Alden notes the jealousies among various British leaders, saying, "It is likely that [Howe] was as jealous of Burgoyne as Burgoyne was of him and that he was not eager to do anything which might assist his junior up the ladder of military renown."[13] Along the same lines Don Higginbotham concludes that in Howe's view, "[The Hudson River campaign] was Burgoyne's whole show, and consequently he [Howe] wanted little to do with it. With regard to Burgoyne's army, he would do only what was required of him (virtually nothing)."[14] Howe himself wrote to Burgoyne on July 17: "My intention is for Pennsylvania, where I expect to meet Washington, but if he goes to the northward contrary to my expectations, and you can keep him at bay, be assured I shall soon be after him to relieve you."[15] He sailed from New York not long after.

text: Early feints[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Washington's Continental Army had been encamped primarily at Morristown, New Jersey, although there was a forward base at Bound Brook, only a few miles from the nearest British outposts. In part as a retaliatory measure against the ongoing skirmishes, General Charles Cornwallis executed a raid against that position in April 1777, in which he very nearly captured the outpost's commander, Benjamin Lincoln. In response to this raid, Washington moved his army forward to a strongly fortified position at Middlebrook in the Watchung Mountains that commanded likely British land routes toward Philadelphia.

text: For reasons that are not entirely clear, General Howe moved a sizable army to Somerset Court House, south of New Brunswick. If he performed this move as a feint to draw Washington out from his strong position, it failed, as Washington refused to move his army out in force. Washington had intelligence that Howe had not brought the necessary equipment for either bringing or constructing watercraft, so this move seemed unlikely to him to be a move toward the Delaware River. When Howe eventually withdrew his army back toward Perth Amboy, Washington did follow. Launching a lightning strike, Howe sent forces under Cornwallis in an attempt to cut Washington off from the high ground; this attempt was foiled in the Battle of Short Hills. Howe then withdrew his troops to Perth Amboy, embarked them on transports, and sailed out of New York harbor, destined for Philadelphia.

text: Washington did not know where Howe was going. Considering the possibility that Howe was again feinting, and would actually sail his army up the Hudson to join with Burgoyne, he remained near New York. Only when he received word that Howe's fleet had reached the mouth of the Delaware, did he need to consider the defense of Philadelphia. However, the fleet did not enter the Delaware, instead continuing south. Uncertain of Howe's goal, which could be Charleston, South Carolina, he considered moving north to assist in the defense of the Hudson, when he learned that the fleet had entered Chesapeake Bay. In August, he began moving his troops south to prepare the city's defenses. General John Sullivan, who commanded the Continental Army's troops facing Staten Island, had, in order to capitalize on perceived weaknesses of the British position there following Howe's departure, attempted a raid on August 22, that failed with the Battle of Staten Island.

text: Capture of Philadelphia[edit]

text: General Howe landed 15,000 troops in late August at the northern end of the Chesapeake Bay, about 55 miles (90 km) southwest of Philadelphia. General Washington positioned 11,000 men between Howe and Philadelphia but was outflanked and driven back at the Battle of Brandywine on September 11, 1777 and suffered over 1,000 casualties, while the British lost about half that number.[16]

text: The Continental Congress once again abandoned the city, relocating first to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and later York, Pennsylvania. British and Revolutionary forces maneuvered around each other west of Philadelphia for the next several days, clashing in minor encounters such as the abortive Battle of the Clouds and the so-called "Paoli Massacre." On September 26, Howe finally outmaneuvered Washington and marched into Philadelphia unopposed. Capture of the rebel capital did not bring the end to the rebellion as the British thought it would. In 18th Century warfare, it was normal that the side who captured the opposing force's capital city won the war. But the war was to continue for six more years (until 1783), given the unconventional warfare tactics of the rebels at the time.

text: After taking the city, the British garrisoned about 9,000 troops in Germantown, five miles (8 km) north of Philadelphia. Washington unsuccessfully attacked Germantown on October 4, and then retreated to watch and wait for the British to counterattack. Meanwhile, the British needed a supply route along the Delaware River to support their occupation of Philadelphia. After a prolonged defense of the river by Commodore John Hazelwood and the Continental Navy the British finally secured the river by taking forts Mifflin and Mercer in November (although the latter was not taken until after a humiliating repulse). In early December, Washington successfully repelled a series of probes by General Howe in the Battle of White Marsh.[17]

text: General Washington's problems at this time were not just with the British. In the so-called Conway Cabal, some politicians and officers unhappy with Washington's performance in the campaign secretively discussed his removal. Washington, offended by the behind-the-scenes maneuvering, laid the whole matter openly before Congress. His supporters rallied behind him, and the episode was abated.[18]

text: Valley Forge and Monmouth[edit]

text: Washington and his army encamped at Valley Forge in December 1777, about 20 miles (32 km) from Philadelphia, where they stayed for the next six months. Over the winter, 2,500 men (out of 10,000) died from disease and exposure. However, the army eventually emerged from Valley Forge in good order, thanks in part to a training program supervised by Baron von Steuben.[19]

text: Meanwhile, there was a shakeup in the British command. General Howe resigned his command, and was replaced by Lieutenant General Sir Henry Clinton as commander-in-chief. France's entry into the war forced a change in British war strategy, and Clinton was ordered by the government to abandon Philadelphia and defend New York City, now vulnerable to French naval power. The British sent out a peace commission headed by the Earl of Carlisle, whose offers, made in June 1778 as Clinton was preparing to abandon Philadelphia, were rejected by Congress. As the British were preparing their withdrawal, Washington sent out Lafayette on a reconnaissance mission. Lafayette narrowly escaped a British ambush at the Battle of Barren Hill.

text: Clinton shipped many Loyalists and most of his heavy equipment by sea to New York, and evacuated Philadelphia on June 18. Washington's army shadowed Clinton's, and Washington successfully forced a battle at Monmouth Courthouse on June 28, the last major battle in the North. Washington's second-in-command, General Charles Lee, who led the advance force of the army, ordered a controversial retreat early in the battle, allowing Clinton's army to regroup. By July, Clinton was in New York City, and Washington was again at White Plains, New York. Both armies were back where they had been two years earlier.

text: Aftermath[edit]

text: Shortly after the British arrived in New York, a French fleet arrived outside its harbor, leading to a flurry of action by both sides. The French and Americans decided to make an attempt on the British garrison at Newport, Rhode Island; this first attempt at coordination was a notable failure.

text: Under orders from London, Clinton reallocated some of his troops to the West Indies, and began a program of coastal raiding from the Chesapeake to Massachusetts. In and around New York, the armies of Clinton and Washington watched each other and skirmished, with occasional major actions like the 1779 Battle of Stony Point and the 1780 Battle of Connecticut Farms. Clinton considered making new attacks on Philadelphia, but these ideas never came to fruition.

text: The British also began a wider frontier war organized from Quebec City, using Loyalist and Native American allies. British and French forces engaged each other in the West Indies and in India beginning in 1778, and the 1779 entry of Spain into the war widened the global aspects of the war even further.

text: In 1780 the British began a "southern strategy" to regain control of the rebelling colonies[20] with the capture of Charleston, South Carolina. This effort would ultimately fail at Yorktown.


document_title: Identity Thief

question_text: who plays the bounty hunter in identity thief

root

text: Identity Thief

text: Plot[edit]

text: In Denver, accountant Sandy Patterson (Jason Bateman) buys identity theft protection from Diana (Melissa McCarthy), a con artist, over the phone and reveals all of his personal information. At work, after Sandy clashes with his obnoxious and bullying boss, Harold Cornish (Jon Favreau), he receives a phone call that reminds him he has an appointment at a salon in Florida. Confused, he puts it out of his mind when co-worker Daniel Casey (John Cho) suggests they and several others leave Cornish's company and start their own firm; Sandy agrees to join them.

tag: p

text: When paying for gas, Sandy's credit card is declined, and the clerk cuts it up. As the credit card company tells him that he has spent huge amounts of money in Florida, he is arrested for missing a court date there. At the police station, Detective Reilly (Morris Chestnut) determines Diana has stolen Sandy's identity. The situation worsens when cops ask Daniel, now his boss, about Sandy's possession of drugs. Reilly says Sandy's name was used to buy drugs from someone named Paolo (Jonathan Banks). Even though it's clear Sandy is not guilty Reilly states he cannot be formally cleared of suspicion until they have evidence of Diana's guilt as it still could technically be Sandy in the eyes of the law. Daniel states they may have to fire Sandy due these issues. When the cops say they can do nothing due to jurisdictional issues unless the identity thief is in Denver, Sandy offers to retrieve her and convince her to clear his name with his boss , despite his wife, Trish's (Amanda Peet) concerns.

text: Sandy finds Diana at the salon in Florida, but when he confronts her, she steals his rental car. Finding her address in her abandoned car, he investigates her house, which is full of merchandise and stolen credit cards. The pair scuffle; before Sandy can handcuff her, criminals Marisol (Genesis Rodriguez) and Julian (T.I.) burst in, angry that Diana gave Paolo bad credit cards. After Sandy and Diana escape, Sandy tells her about his plan to restore his reputation, and she agrees to help on condition that no police are involved, Sandy agrees but had plans to have police in the next room when she speaks to his boss. Meanwhile, a skiptracer (Robert Patrick) is dispatched to track down Diana for a substantial bounty. Because their IDs are identical, flight is impossible, and they travel to Denver by car.

text: After traveling through several states, the skiptracer catches up to the pair and captures Diana. A chase ensues; she knocks him unconscious, and Sandy rams his van off the road. When Sandy's rental car gets plowed and totaled by an oncoming semi, they take the skiptracer's van, with him tied up in the back. When it overheats, they continue on foot, Diana thanks Sandy for saving her and calls him a good friend, Sandy coldly says they are not friends. Hoping to reach a nearby service station they take a detour through a forest but end up lost and having to spend the night. Sandy discards his pants when he finds a snake in them, and Diana accidentally knocks him unconscious when another bites his neck. Sandy wakes at a bus station, and Diana says she carried him until she flagged down a truck. As the next bus to Denver leaves in three days, Sandy uses money hidden in his socks to buy a $200 car from an auto wrecking yard. Running low on funds for gas money, Diana offers to help, Sandy is at first reluctant but Diana asks if he does not know anyone who truly deserves it. The pair then con an accounts processor at a branch is Sandy's old firm and steal Cornish's identity to create new credit cards. Meanwhile, Marisol shoots the skiptracer, and the criminals continue their pursuit of Sandy and Diana.

text: In St. Louis, the two share dinner, and Diana admits she does not know her real name due to growing up as a foster child. The accounts processor enters with cops, who arrest Sandy and Diana. Diana uncuffs herself in the back of the police car, breaks the back windshield, and escapes with Sandy. The skiptracer shoots Marisol and Julian, finds Diana and Sandy on the highway mid-escape, and hits Diana with his car. Sandy comes to her aid, but Diana revives and defensively strikes Sandy in the throat. Diana and Sandy eventually get home, where Diana has dinner with Sandy's family and reconciles with them.

text: The next morning, Sandy finds Diana gone and a note that apologizes for the trouble she caused. Sandy prepares to quit his job, but Daniel shows him that Diana turned herself in. Detective Reilly tells Sandy he is no longer part of the investigation, and Diana is taken away in cuffs. Before she leaves, Sandy asks her why; Diana says she knew he would not turn her in, but it was the right thing to do. A year later, Sandy celebrates another birthday, this time with his third child. The family visits Diana in prison, and Sandy presents her with a birth certificate that reveals her name as Dawn Budgie. They both agree it is an awful name. Diana hugs Sandy. When a guard antagonizes her, Diana punches the guard, and another guard stuns her with a Taser. As she recovers and walks back to her cell, Sandy watches with a shocked and slightly bemused expression.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Jason Bateman as Sandy Bigelow Patterson
Melissa McCarthy as Diana/Dawn Budgie
Amanda Peet as Trish Patterson
Jon Favreau as Harold Cornish
T.I. as Julian
Genesis Rodriguez as Marisol
Robert Patrick as Skiptracer
Morris Chestnut as Detective Reilly
John Cho as Daniel Casey
Eric Stonestreet as Big Chuck
Jonathan Banks as Paolo Gordon
Mary-Charles Jones as Franny Patterson
Maggie Elizabeth Jones as Jessie Patterson
Ben Falcone as Tony, the Motel Desk Clerk
Ellie Kemper as Flo, the Truck-Stop Server (uncredited)

tag: ul

text: Production[edit]

text: Casting[edit]

text: The film was first conceived as a project with two male leads, but that changed when Bateman saw McCarthy in Bridesmaids and pushed for her to star alongside him.[3] Jerry Eeten wrote an early draft, later finished by Craig Mazin with a final rewrite by Seth Gordon. In January 2012, Gordon was announced as the director of the film with Scott Stuber producing through his Stuber Pictures banner with Bateman and Peter Morgan for DumbDumb.[4] In April 2012, John Cho, Clark Duke and Amanda Peet joined the cast (Duke did not appear in the finished film).[5] In May 2012, Jon Favreau[6] and Morris Chestnut[7] also joined the cast.

text: Filming[edit]

text: Some filming took place in Atlanta at the 191 Peachtree Tower, around May 2012. Scenes were also filmed on Peachtree Street in Midtown Atlanta, at The Colonnade restaurant on Cheshire Bridge Road in Morningside, and at Perimeter Mall.[8] Scenes from the film were also shot at Salon 2000 in Ansley Mall.

text: Release[edit]

text: In March 2012, a release date of May 10, 2013 was announced.[9] In June 2012, the release date changed to February 8, 2013.

text: Marketing[edit]

text: The first official full-length trailer of the film was released on September 26, 2012.[10]

text: Box office[edit]

text: Identity Thief has grossed $134.5 million in the USA & Canada, and $39.5 million in other countries, for a worldwide total of $174 million against a budget of $35 million.[2]

text: Despite the mostly negative critical reviews, Identity Thief opened at #1 at the box office with $34.5 million in its first weekend, which was considered remarkable by analysts since a major winter storm, often a concern with winter dump months releases, forced theater closings and kept moviegoers at home in the densely populated Northeast.[11] The film held the #2 spot in its second weekend, grossing $27.5 million and only dropping 20.5%.[12] It reclaimed the #1 spot in its third week opening.

text: Reception[edit]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: On Rotten Tomatoes the film has an approval rating of 19% based on 165 reviews with an average rating of 4.1/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Identity Thief's few laughs are attributable to Melissa McCarthy and Jason Bateman, who labor mightily to create a framework for the movie's undisciplined plotline".[13] On Metacritic, the film has a score of 35 out of 100 based on 41 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews".[14] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B" on an A+ to F scale.[15]

text: R. Kurt Osenlund of Slant Magazine gave the film a positive review, rating it 3 out of 4 stars, praising McCarthy's performance, writing that she "gives a performance leagues better than anything to be expected in a mainstream, early-in-the-year release, padding a typically sketched character with layers of hilarity and pathos. McCarthy owns 'Identity Thief' with a turn of limitless surprise, making an otherwise adequate comedy soar as a star vehicle. She is riveting in simply-penned moments of remorse and confession, adding tearful depth to her ace timing and formidable physical comedy."[16]

text: In his negative review, Rex Reed controversially made several references to Melissa McCarthy's weight, referring to her as "tractor-sized", "humongous", "obese", and a "hippo".[17][18] Reed's comments immediately attracted wide criticism from various film critics and the film industry at large. Film critic Richard Roeper said, "This just smacks of mean-spirited name-calling in lieu of genuine criticism."[19] On Twitter, Paul Feig, who directed McCarthy in Bridesmaids and The Heat, wrote, "I cordially invite Mr. Rex Reed to go fuck himself."[19] The review was referenced at the 85th Academy Awards on February 24, 2013 by the host, Seth MacFarlane, who joked that Reed would review Adele for singing "Skyfall" at the ceremony.[20] In a column for The Huffington Post, Candy Spelling likened Reed's review to bullying.[21]

text: Accolades[edit]

text:
Year
Award
Category
Nominee
Result

2013
Teen Choice Awards
Choice Movie: Comedy
Nominated

Choice Movie Actor: Comedy
Jason Bateman
Nominated

Choice Movie Actress: Comedy
Melissa McCarthy
Nominated

Choice Movie: Villain
Nominated

2014
People's Choice Awards
Favorite Comedic Movie Actress
Nominated

MTV Movie Awards
Best Musical Performance
Nominated

Best Fight
Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy
Nominated

tag: table


document_title: Voting rights in the United States

question_text: who did not receive the right to vote in the constitution of 1869

question_tokens: who did not receive the right to vote in the constitution of 1869

text: Voting rights in the United States

text: Background[edit]

text: The United States Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only white male adult property owners to vote.[1][2][3] Freed slaves could vote in four states.[4] Women were largely prohibited from voting, as were men without property. Women could vote in New Jersey until 1807 (provided they could meet the property requirement) and in some local jurisdictions in other northern states. Non-white Americans could also vote in these jurisdictions, provided they could meet the property requirement. By 1856, white men were allowed to vote in all states regardless of property ownership, although requirements for paying tax remained in five states.[5][6] On the other hand, several states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey stripped the free black males of the right to vote in the same period.

text: Four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:

text:
"Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (15th Amendment, 1870)
"On account of sex" (19th Amendment, 1920)
"By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" for federal elections (24th Amendment, 1964)[nb 1]
"Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971)

text: Following the Reconstruction Era until the culmination of the Civil Rights Movement, Jim Crow laws such as literacy tests, poll taxes, and religious tests were some of the state and local laws used in various parts of the United States to deny immigrants (including legal ones and newly naturalized citizens), non-white citizens, Native Americans, and any other locally "undesirable" groups from exercising voting rights granted under the constitution.[7] Because of such state and local discriminatory practices, over time, the federal role in elections has increased, through amendments to the Constitution and enacted legislation (e.g., the Voting Rights Act of 1965).

text: The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons. For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting, even those who have served their sentences. Another example, seen in Bush v. Gore, are disputes as to what rules should apply in counting or recounting ballots.[8]

text: A state may choose to fill an office by means other than an election. For example, upon death or resignation of a legislator, the state may allow the affiliated political party to choose a replacement to hold office until the next scheduled election. Such an appointment is often affirmed by the governor.[9]

text: The Constitution, in Article VI, clause (paragraph) 3, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". However, as described in the sections below, voting rights reforms in the 19th and 20th centuries extended the franchise to non-whites, those who do not own property, women, and those 18–21 years old.

text: Milestones of national franchise changes[edit]

text:
1789: The Constitution grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males.
1790: The Naturalization Act of 1790 allows white men born outside of the United States to become citizens with the right to vote.
1792: Beginning of the abolition of property qualifications for white men, from 1792 (Kentucky) to 1856 (North Carolina) during the periods of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy.[5]
1792-1838: Free black males lose the right to vote in several Northern states including Pennsylvania and New Jersey
1868: Citizenship is guaranteed to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, setting the stage for future expansions to voting rights.
1870: Non-white men and freed male slaves are guaranteed the right to vote by the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, for many years, some states were very successful at suppressing this vote (see Jim Crow Laws).
1887: Citizenship is granted to Native Americans who are willing to disassociate themselves from their tribe by the Dawes Act, making the men technically eligible to vote.
1913: Direct election of Senators, established by the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, gave voters rather than state legislatures the right to elect senators.[10]
1920: Women are guaranteed the right to vote by the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In practice, the same restrictions that hindered the ability of non-white men to vote now also applied to non-white women.
1924: All Native Americans are granted citizenship and the right to vote, regardless of tribal affiliation. By this point, approximately two thirds of Native Americans were already citizens.[11][12]
1943: Chinese immigrants given the right to citizenship and the right to vote by the Magnuson Act.
1961: Residents of Washington, D.C. are granted the right to vote in U.S. Presidential Elections by the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution.
1964: Tax payment prohibited from being used as a condition for voting in federal elections by the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
1965: Protection of voter registration and voting for racial minorities, later applied to language minorities, is established by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This has also been applied to correcting discriminatory election systems and districting.[13]
1966: Tax payment and property requirements for voting are prohibited in all U.S. elections by the Supreme Court in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections.
1971: Adults aged 18 through 21 are granted the right to vote by the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This was enacted in response to Vietnam War protests, which argued that soldiers who were old enough to fight for their country should be granted the right to vote.[10][14]
1986: United States Military and Uniformed Services, Merchant Marine, other citizens overseas, living on bases in the United States, abroad, or aboard ship are granted the right to vote by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.[15]

text: Removal of exclusions[edit]

text: Each extension of voting rights has been a product of, and also brought about, social change. Extension of voting rights happened through movements and a need for the US to adapt to its growing population.

text: Native American people[edit]

text: From 1778 to 1871, the government tried to resolve its relationship with the various native tribes by negotiating treaties. These treaties formed agreements between two sovereign nations, stating that Native American people were citizens of their tribe, living within the boundaries of the United States. The treaties were negotiated by the executive branch and ratified by the U.S. Senate. It said that native tribes would give up their rights to hunt and live on huge parcels of land that they had inhabited in exchange for trade goods, yearly cash annuity payments, and assurances that no further demands would be made on them. Most often, part of the land would be "reserved" exclusively for the tribe's use.[16]

text: Throughout the 1800s, many native tribes gradually lost claim to the lands they had inhabited for centuries through the federal government's Indian Removal policy to relocate tribes from the Southeast and Northwest to west of the Mississippi River. European-American settlers continued to encroach on western lands. Only in 1879, in the Standing Bear trial, were American Indians recognized as persons in the eyes of the United States government. Judge Elmer Scipio Dundy of Nebraska declared that Indians were people within the meaning of the laws, and they had the rights associated with a writ of habeas corpus. However, Judge Dundy left unsettled the question as to whether Native Americans were guaranteed US citizenship.[17]

text: Although Native Americans were born within the national boundaries of the United States, those on reservations were considered citizens of their own tribes, rather than of the United States. They were denied the right to vote because they were not considered citizens by law and were thus ineligible. Many Native Americans were told that they would become citizens if they gave up their tribal affiliations in 1887 under the Dawes Act, which allocated communal lands to individual households and was intended to aid in the assimilation of Native Americans into majority culture. This still did not guarantee their right to vote. In 1924 the remaining Native Americans, estimated at about one-third, became United States citizens. But, many western states continued to restrict Native American ability to vote through property requirements, economic pressures, hiding the polls, and condoning of physical violence against those who voted.[18] Since the late 20th century, they have been protected under provisions of the Voting Rights Act as a racial minority, and in some areas, language minority, gaining election materials in their native languages.

text: Religious test[edit]

text: In several British North American colonies, before and after the 1776 Declaration of Independence, Jews, Quakers and/or Catholics were excluded from the franchise and/or from running for elections.[19]

text: The Delaware Constitution of 1776 stated that "Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall (...) also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.".[20] This was repealed by Article I, Section II. of the 1792 Constitution: "No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under this State".[21] The 1778 Constitution of the State of South Carolina stated, "No person shall be eligible to sit in the house of representatives unless he be of the Protestant religion",[22] the 1777 Constitution of the State of Georgia (art. VI) that "The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county (...) and they shall be of the Protestant religion".[23]

text: With the growth in the number of Baptists in Virginia before the Revolution, who challenged the established Anglican Church, the issues of religious freedom became important to rising leaders such as James Madison. As a young lawyer, he defended Baptist preachers who were not licensed by (and were opposed by) the established state Anglican Church. He carried developing ideas about religious freedom to be incorporated into the constitutional convention of the United States.

text: In 1787, Article One of the United States Constitution stated that "the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature". More significantly, Article Six disavowed the religious test requirements of several states, saying: "[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

text: But, in Maryland, Jewish Americans were excluded from State office until the law requiring candidates to affirm a belief in an afterlife[24] was repealed in 1828.

text: Poor whites and free African Americans[edit]

text: At the time of ratification of the Constitution in the late 18th century, most states had property qualifications which restricted the franchise; the exact amount varied by state, but by some estimates, more than half of white men were disenfranchised.[25] Several states granted suffrage to free men of color after the Revolution, including North Carolina. This fact was noted by Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis' dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), as he emphasized that blacks had been considered citizens at the time the Constitution was ratified:

text: Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens.[26]

text:
In the 1820s, New York State enlarged its franchise to white men by dropping the property qualification, but maintained it for free blacks.
The Supreme Court of North Carolina had upheld the ability of free African Americans to vote in that state. In 1835, because of fears of the role of free blacks after Nat Turner's Slave Rebellion of 1831, they were disenfranchised by decision of the North Carolina Constitutional Convention. At the same time, convention delegates relaxed religious and property qualifications for whites, thus expanding the franchise for them.[27]
Alabama entered the union in 1819 with universal white suffrage provided in its constitution.

text: When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, it granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. In 1869, the Fifteenth Amendment prohibited the government from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". The major effect of these amendments was to enfranchise African American men, the overwhelming majority of whom were freedmen in the South.[28]

text: After the war, some southern states passed "Black Codes", state laws to restrict the new freedoms of African Americans. They attempted to control their movement, assembly, working conditions and other civil rights. Some states also prohibited them from voting.[28]

text: The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, one of three ratified after the American Civil War to grant freedmen full rights of citizenship, prevented any state from denying the right to vote to any citizen based on race. This was primarily related to protecting the franchise of freedmen, but it also applied to non-white minorities, such as Mexican Americans in Texas. The state governments under Reconstruction adopted new state constitutions or amendments designed to protect the ability of freedmen to vote. The white resistance to black suffrage after the war regularly erupted into violence as white groups tried to protect their power. Particularly in the South, in the aftermath of the Civil War whites made efforts to suppress freedmen's voting. In the 1860s, secret vigilante groups such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) used violence and intimidation to keep freedmen in a controlled role and reestablish white supremacy. But, black freedmen registered and voted in high numbers, and many were elected to local offices through the 1880s.

text: In the mid-1870s, the insurgencies continued with a rise in more powerful white paramilitary groups, such as the White League, originating in Louisiana in 1874 after a disputed gubernatorial election; and the Red Shirts, originating in Mississippi in 1875 and developing numerous chapters in North and South Carolina; as well as other "White Line" rifle clubs. They operated openly, were more organized than the KKK, and directed their efforts at political goals: to disrupt Republican organizing, turn Republicans out of office, and intimidate or kill blacks to suppress black voting. They worked as "the military arm of the Democratic Party".[29] For instance, estimates were that 150 blacks were killed in North Carolina before the 1876 elections. Economic tactics such as eviction from rental housing or termination of employment were also used to suppress the black vote. White Democrats regained power in state legislatures across the South by the late 1870s, and the federal government withdrew its troops as a result of a national compromise related to the presidency, officially ending Reconstruction.

text: African Americans were a majority in three southern states following the Civil War, and represented over 40% of the population in four other states. While they did not elect a majority of African Americans to office in any state legislature during Reconstruction, whites still feared and resented the political power exercised by freedmen.[30] After ousting the Republicans, whites worked to restore white supremacy.

text: Although elections were often surrounded by violence, blacks continued to vote and gained many local offices in the late 19th century. In the late 19th century, a Populist-Republican coalition in several states gained governorships and some congressional seats in 1894. To prevent such a coalition from forming again and reduce election violence, the Democratic Party, dominant in all southern state legislatures, took action to disfranchise most blacks and many poor whites outright.

text: From 1890 to 1908, ten of the eleven former Confederate states completed political suppression and exclusion of these groups by ratifying new constitutions or amendments which incorporated provisions to make voter registration more difficult. These included such requirements as payment of poll taxes, complicated record keeping, complicated timing of registration and length of residency in relation to elections, with related record-keeping requirements; felony disenfranchisement focusing on crimes thought to be committed by African Americans,[31] and a literacy test or comprehension test.

text: Prospective voters had to prove the ability to read and write the English language to white voter registrars, who in practice applied subjective requirements. Blacks were often denied the right to vote on this basis. Even well-educated blacks were often told they had "failed" such a test, if in fact, it had been administered. On the other hand, illiterate whites were sometimes allowed to vote through a "grandfather clause," which waived literacy requirements if one's grandfather had been a qualified voter before 1866, or had served as a soldier, or was from a foreign country. As most blacks had grandfathers who were slaves before 1866 and could not have fulfilled any of those conditions, they could not use the grandfather clause exemption. Selective enforcement of the poll tax was frequently also used to disqualify black and poor white voters. As a result of these measures, at the turn of the century voter rolls dropped markedly across the South. Most blacks and many poor whites were excluded from the political system for decades. Unable to vote, they were also excluded from juries or running for any office.

text: In Alabama, for example, its 1901 constitution restricted the franchise for poor whites as well as blacks. It contained requirements for payment of cumulative poll taxes, completion of literacy tests, and increased residency at state, county and precinct levels, effectively disenfranchised tens of thousands of poor whites as well as most blacks. Historian J. Morgan Kousser found, "They disfranchised these whites as willingly as they deprived blacks of the vote."[32] By 1941, more whites than blacks in total had been disenfranchised.[33]

text: Legal challenges to disfranchisement[edit]

text: Although African Americans quickly began legal challenges to such provisions in the 19th century, it was years before any were successful before the U.S. Supreme Court. Booker T. Washington, better known for his public stance of trying to work within societal constraints of the period at Tuskegee University, secretly helped fund and arrange representation for numerous legal challenges to disfranchisement. He called upon wealthy Northern allies and philanthropists to raise funds for the cause.[34] The Supreme Court's upholding of Mississippi's new constitution, in Williams v. Mississippi (1898), encouraged other states to follow the Mississippi plan of disfranchisement. African Americans brought other legal challenges, as in Giles v. Harris (1903) and Giles v. Teasley (1904), but the Supreme Court upheld Alabama constitutional provisions. In 1915 Oklahoma was the last state to append a grandfather clause to its literacy requirement due to Supreme Court cases.

text: From early in the 20th century, the newly established National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) took the lead in organizing or supporting legal challenges to segregation and disfranchisement. Gradually they planned the strategy of which cases to take forward. In Guinn v. United States (1915), the first case in which the NAACP filed a brief, the Supreme Court struck down the grandfather clause in Oklahoma and Maryland. Other states in which it was used had to retract their legislation as well. The challenge was successful.

text: But, nearly as rapidly as the Supreme Court determined a specific provision was unconstitutional, state legislatures developed new statutes to continue disenfranchisement. For instance, in Smith v. Allwright (1944), the Supreme Court struck down the use of state-sanctioned all-white primaries by the Democratic Party in the South. States developed new restrictions on black voting; Alabama passed a law giving county registrars more authority as to which questions they asked applicants in comprehension or literacy tests. The NAACP continued with steady progress in legal challenges to disenfranchisement and segregation.

text: In 1957, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 to implement the Fifteenth Amendment. It established the United States Civil Rights Commission; among its duties is to investigate voter discrimination.

text: As late as 1962, programs such as Operation Eagle Eye in Arizona attempted to stymie minority voting through literacy tests. The 24th Amendment was ratified in 1964 to prohibit poll taxes as a condition of voter registration and voting in federal elections. Many states continued to use them in state elections as a means of reducing the number of voters.

text: The American Civil Rights Movement, through such events as the Selma to Montgomery marches and Freedom Summer in Mississippi, gained passage by the United States Congress of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which authorized federal oversight of voter registration and election practices and other enforcement of voting rights. Congress passed the legislation because it found "case by case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting". Activism by African Americans helped secure an expanded and protected franchise that has benefited all Americans, including racial and language minorities.

text: The bill provided for federal oversight, if necessary, to ensure just voter registration and election procedures. The rate of African-American registration and voting in Southern states climbed dramatically and quickly, but it has taken years of federal oversight to work out the processes and overcome local resistance. In addition, it was not until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) that all state poll taxes (for both state and federal elections) were officially declared unconstitutional as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This removed a burden on the poor.

text: Legal challenges have continued under the Voting Rights Act, primarily in areas of redistricting and election systems, for instance, challenging at-large election systems that effectively reduce the ability of minority groups to elect candidates of their choice. Such challenges have particularly occurred at the county and municipal level, including for school boards, where exclusion of minority groups and candidates at such levels has been persistent in some areas of the country. This reduces the ability of women and minorities to participate in the political system and gain entry-level experience.

text: Women[edit]

text: A parallel, yet separate, movement was that for women's suffrage. Leaders of the suffrage movement included Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul. In some ways this, too, could be said to have grown out of the American Civil War, as women had been strong leaders of the abolition movement. Middle- and upper-class women generally became more politically active in the northern tier during and after the war.

text: In 1848, the Seneca Falls Convention, the first women's rights convention, was held in Seneca Falls, New York. Of the 300 present, 68 women and 32 men signed the Declaration of Sentiments which defined the women's rights movement. The first National Women's Rights Convention took place in 1850 in Worcester, Massachusetts, attracting more than 1,000 participants. This national convention was held yearly through 1860.

text: When Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton formed the National Women Suffrage Association, their goal was to help women gain voting rights through reliance on the Constitution. Also, in 1869 Lucy Stone and Henry Blackwell formed the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA). However, AWSA focused on gaining voting rights for women through the amendment process. Although these two organization were fighting for the same cause, it was not until 1890 that they merged to form the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). After the merger of the two organizations, the (NAWSA) waged a state-by-state campaign to obtain voting rights for women.

text: Wyoming was the first state in which women were able to vote, although it was a condition of the transition to statehood. Utah was the second territory to allow women to vote, but the federal Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887 repealed woman's suffrage in Utah. Colorado was the first established state to allow women to vote on the same basis as men. Some other states also extended the franchise to women before the Constitution was amended to this purpose.

text: During the 1910s Alice Paul, assisted by Lucy Burns and many others, organized such events and organizations as the 1913 Women's Suffrage Parade, the National Woman's Party, and the Silent Sentinels. At the culmination of the suffragists' requests and protests, ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment gave women the right to vote in time to participate in the Presidential election of 1920.

text: Another political movement that was largely driven by women in the same era was the anti-alcohol Temperance movement, which led to the Eighteenth Amendment and Prohibition.[35]

text: Washington, D.C.[edit]

text: Washington, D.C., was created from a portion of the states of Maryland and Virginia in 1801. The Virginia portion was retroceded (returned) to Virginia upon request of the residents, by an Act of Congress in 1846 to protect slavery, and restore state and federal voting rights in that portion of Virginia. When Maryland delegated a portion of its land to Congress so that it could be used as the Nation's capital, Congress did not continue Maryland Voting Laws. It canceled all state and federal elections starting with 1802. Local elections limped on in some neighborhoods, until 1871, when local elections were also forbidden by the U.S. Congress. The U.S. Congress is the National Legislature. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, Congress has the sole authority to exercise "Exclusive Legislature in all cases whatsoever" over the nation's capital and over federal military bases. Active disfranchisement is typically a States Rights Legislative issue, where the removal of voting rights is permitted. At the national level, the federal government typically ignored voting rights issues, or affirmed that they were extended.

text: Congress, when exercising "exclusive legislation" over U.S. Military Bases in the United States, and Washington, D.C., viewed its power as strong enough to remove all voting rights. All state and federal elections were canceled by Congress in D.C. and all of Maryland's voting Rights laws no longer applied to D.C. when Maryland gave up that land. Congress did not pass laws to establish local voting processes in the District of Columbia. This omission of law strategy to disfranchise is contained in the Congressional debates in Annals of Congress in 1800 and 1801.

text: In 1986, the US Congress voted to restore voting rights on U.S. Military bases for all state and federal elections.

text: D.C., citizens were granted the right to vote in Presidential elections in 1961, after the ratification of the twenty-third amendment. Amendment 23 is the only known limit to U.S. Congressional powers, forcing Congress to enforce Amendments 14, 15, 19, 24, and 26 for the first time in Presidential elections. The Maryland citizens and territory converted in Washington, D.C., in 1801 were represented in 1801 by U.S. Rep. John Chew Thomas from Maryland's 2nd, and U.S. Rep. William Craik from Maryland's 3rd Congressional Districts. These Maryland U.S. Congressional Districts were redrawn and removed from Washington, D.C.

text: No full Congressional elections have been held since in D.C., a gap continuing since 1801. Congress created a non-voting substitute for a U.S. Congressman, a Delegate, between 1871–1875, but then abolished that post as well. Congress permitted restoration of local elections and home rule for the District on December 24, 1973. In 1971, Congress still opposed restoring the position of a full U.S. Congressman for Washington, D.C. That year it re-established the position of non-voting Delegate to the U.S. Congress.[36]

text: Young people[edit]

text: A third voting rights movement was won in the 1960s to lower the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen. Activists noted that most of the young men who were being drafted to fight in the Vietnam War were too young to have any voice in the selection of the leaders who were sending them to fight. Some states had already lowered the voting age: notably Georgia, Kentucky, and Hawaii, had already permitted voting by persons younger than twenty-one.

text: The Twenty-sixth Amendment, ratified in 1971, prohibits federal and state laws which set a minimum voting age higher than 18 years. As of 2008, no state has opted for an earlier age, although some state governments have discussed it.[37] California has, since the 1980s, allowed persons who are 17 to register to vote for an election where the election itself will occur on or after their 18th birthday, and several states including Indiana allow 17-year-olds to vote in a primary election provided they will be 18 by the general election.

text: Prisoners[edit]

text: Prisoner voting rights are defined by individual states, and the laws are different from state to state. Some states allow only individuals on probation to vote. Others allow individuals on parole and probation. As of 2012, only three states, Florida, Kentucky and Virginia, continue to impose a lifelong denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record, absent a restoration of rights granted by the Governor or state legislature.[38] However, in Kentucky, a felon's rights can be restored after the completion of a restoration process to regain civil rights.[38][39]

text: In 2007, Florida legislature restored voting rights to convicted felons who had served their sentences. In March 2011, however, Governor Rick Scott reversed the 2007 reforms. He signed legislation that permanently disenfranchises citizens with past felony convictions.[40]

text: In July 2005, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack issued an executive order restoring the right to vote for all persons who have completed supervision.[38] On October 31, 2005, Iowa's Supreme Court upheld mass reenfranchisement of convicted felons. Nine other states disenfranchise felons for various lengths of time following the completion of their probation or parole.

text: Other than Maine and Vermont, all U.S. states prohibit felons from voting while they are in prison.[41] In Puerto Rico, felons in prison are allowed to vote in elections.

text: Practices in the United States are in contrast to some European nations, such as Norway. Some nations[42] allow prisoners to vote. Prisoners have been allowed to vote in Canada since 2002.[43]

text: The United States has a higher proportion of its population in prison than any other Western nation,[44] and more than Russia or China.[45] The dramatic rise in the rate of incarceration in the United States, a 500% increase from the 1970s to the 1990s,[46] has vastly increased the number of people disenfranchised because of the felon provisions.

text: According to the Sentencing Project, as of 2010 an estimated 5.9 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of a felony conviction, a number equivalent to 2.5% of the U.S. voting-age population and a sharp increase from the 1.2 million people affected by felony disenfranchisement in 1976.[46] Given the prison populations, the effects have been most disadvantageous for minority and poor communities.[47]

text: Durational residency[edit]

text: The Supreme Court of the United States struck down one-year residency requirements to vote in Dunn v. Blumstein 405 U.S. 330 (1972).[48] The Court ruled that limits on voter registration of up to 30 to 50 days prior to an election were permissible for logistical reasons, but that residency requirements in excess of that violated the equal protection clause, as granted under the Fourteenth Amendment, according to strict scrutiny.

text: Homelessness[edit]

text: Obstacles homeless citizens face during voter registration[edit]

text: In the 1980s homelessness was recognized as an increasing national problem. By the early 21st century, there have been numerous court cases to help protect the voting rights of persons without a fixed address. Low income and homeless citizens face some obstacles in registering to vote. These obstacles include establishing residency, providing a mailing address, and showing proof of identification. A residency requirement varies from state to state. States cannot require citizens to show residency of more than 30 days before Election Day. The states of Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming allow voters to register on Election Day. North Dakota does not require voters to register.[49]

text: In the 21st century, homeless persons in all states have the right to register and vote if they satisfy other conditions. In most states, when registering to vote, homeless voters may designate any place of residence, including a street corner, a park, a shelter, or any other location where an individual stays at night. A citizen may only have one residency during registration, but they may switch their registration each time they change locations.[50] Designating residency is needed to prove that the citizen lives within the district where he or she wishes to vote. Some states also require a mailing address in order to send out the voter ID card, which the individual must show on Election Day. Some states allow individuals to use PO Boxes as mailing addresses; other states allow the address to be that of a local shelter, advocacy organization, outreach center, or anywhere else that accepts mail on behalf of a person registering to vote. States such as Arizona and Nebraska allow homeless citizens to use county court houses or county clerks’ offices as mailing address.

text: States that do not require a mailing address include Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Montana, New Jersey, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.[51]

text: All potential voters face new requirements since 2002, when President Bush signed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).[52][53] It requires voters to provide their driver's license numbers, or the last four digits of their Social Security Number on their voter registration form. This has been enforced.

text: The National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) assists nonprofit organizations, in getting lower income and homeless citizens registered to vote. In 1992, the NCH created a campaign called "You don’t need a home to vote".[54] This campaign provided useful resources and guidelines for nonprofit organizations to follow when assisting citizens to register. Nonprofits, like homeless shelters and food banks, set up a voter registration party to help homeless citizens to register. The nonprofit workers must remain nonpartisan when assisting in the registration process.

text: Court cases involving homeless voting[edit]

text: Voting rights of the American homeless is an issue that has been addressed in the courts since the 1980s. Each state is responsible for voting regulations in their area; however, many states throughout America have adopted similar laws regarding homeless citizen voting. Disenfranchising the homeless is considered a violation of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Many arguments have been made against homeless people being able to vote. Their status of true citizenship has been called into question because of their lack of residency. However, the courts have ruled on more than one occasion in favor of the homeless voting.

text: One of the first court cases regarding homeless voting was Pitts v. Black in New York. The US district court ruled that disenfranchising homeless citizens is a direct violation of the Equal Protection clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment.

text: Pitts v. Black (1984): This case heard by the US District Court of Southern New York case involved the New York Election Board and homeless individuals assisted by the Coalition for the Homeless, among others. The Election Board denied the individuals the right to vote because they resided on the street or in shelters. The Election Board contended that residency required some claim (such as rent) or ownership of the area that they resided on.[55] Before the court decision was made, the Election Board relented slightly and allowed those living in shelters the right to vote.[56] The District Court defined the meaning of "residence" as any fixed location which the individual intends to inhabit regularly. This ruling encompassed all homeless, including those residing on streets and in parks.[55][57]

text: Two California court rulings, Collier v. Menzel, and Walters v. Weed, also addressed the residency question of homeless voters:

text:
Collier v. Menzel (1985): The Santa Barbara District Court case established that a residence could be a certain location rather than a specific address. Howard Menzel, the county clerk, rejected three voter registration applications on the grounds that proper addresses were not provided. The applications simply stated a public park as the applicants' residence. The court overruled the clerk's decision and defined a residence as any fixed location where a person habitually sleeps and where living quarters are set up. In their final decisions, the court stated that denying a citizen the right to vote due to residence in a public park, is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause.[57][58]
Walters v. Weed (1988): In 1988, the California Supreme Court judged a case concerning voter precincts of those who are between residences. The court ruled that when a person leaves his former place of residence and has not yet settled in another permanent living place, then the individual may vote in the precinct of his former residence.[57][59]

text: Special interest elections[edit]

text: Several locales retained restrictions for specialized local elections, such as for school boards, special districts, or bond issues. Property restrictions, duration of residency restrictions, and, for school boards, restrictions of the franchise to voters with children, remained in force. In a series of rulings from 1969 to 1973, the Court ruled that the franchise could be restricted in some cases to those "primarily interested" or "primarily affected" by the outcome of a specialized election, but not in the case of school boards or bond issues, which affected taxation to be paid by all residents.[9] In Ball v. James 451 U.S. 335 (1981), the Court further upheld a system of plural voting, by which votes for the board of directors of a water reclamation district were allocated on the basis of a person's proportion of land owned in the district.[9]

text: The Court has overseen operation of political party primaries to ensure open voting. While states were permitted to require voters to register for a political party 30 days before an election, or to require them to vote in only one party primary, the state could not prevent a voter from voting in a party primary if the voter has voted in another party's primary in the last 23 months.[9] The Court also ruled that a state may not mandate a "closed primary" system and bar independents from voting in a party's primary against the wishes of the party. (Tashijan v. Republican Party of Connecticut 479 U.S. 208 (1986))[60]

text: The Office of Hawaiian Affairs of the state of Hawaii, created in 1978, limited voting eligibility and candidate eligibility to native Hawaiians on whose behalf it manages 1,800,000 acres (7,300 km2) of ceded land. The Supreme Court of the United States struck down the franchise restriction under the Fifteenth Amendment in Rice v. Cayetano 528 U.S. 495 (2000), following by eliminating the candidate restriction in Arakaki v. State of Hawai‘i a few months later.

text: Current status[edit]

text: By region[edit]

text: District of Columbia[edit]

text: Citizens of the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., have not been apportioned a representative or US senator in Congress. This is because D.C. is a federal district and not a state and under the Constitution, only states are apportioned congresspersons.

text: District of Columbia citizens had voting rights removed in 1801 by Congress, when Maryland delegated that portion of its land to Congress. Congress incrementally removed effective local control or home rule by 1871. It restored some home rule in 1971, but maintained the authority to override any local laws. Washington, D.C., does not have full representation in the U.S. House or Senate. The Twenty-third Amendment, restoring U.S. Presidential Election after a 164-year-gap, is the only known limit to Congressional "exclusive legislature" from Article I-8-17, forcing Congress to enforce for the first time Amendments 14,15,19, 24, and 26. Amendment 23 gave the District of Columbia three electors and hence the right to vote for President, but not full U.S. Congresspersons nor U.S. Senators. In 1978, Congress proposed a constitutional amendment that would have restored to the District a full seat for representation in the Congress as well. This amendment failed to receive ratification by sufficient number of states within the seven years required.

text: As of 2013[update], a bill is pending in Congress that would treat the District of Columbia as "a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives", and permit United States citizens residing in the capital to vote for a member to represent them in the House of Representatives. The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, S. 160, 111th Cong. was passed by the U.S. Senate on February 26, 2009, by a vote of 61-37.[61]

text: On April 1, 1993, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States received a petition from Timothy Cooper on behalf of the Statehood Solidarity Committee (the "Petitioners") against the government of the United States (the "State" or "United States"). The petition indicated that it was presented on behalf of the members of the Statehood Solidarity Committee and all other U.S. citizens resident in the District of Columbia. The petition alleged that the United States was responsible for violations of Articles II (right to equality before law) and XX (right to vote and to participate in government) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man in connection with the inability of citizens of the District of Columbia to vote for and elect a representative to the U.S. Congress. On December 29, 2003, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights having examined the information and arguments provided by the parties on the question of admissibility. Without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Commission decided to admit the present petition in respect of Articles II and XX of the American Declaration. In addition, the Commission concluded that the United States violates the Petitioners’ rights under Articles II and XX of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man by denying District of Columbia citizens an effective opportunity to participate in their federal legislature.[62]

text: Overseas and nonresident citizens[edit]

text: U.S. citizens residing overseas who would otherwise have the right to vote are guaranteed the right to vote in federal elections by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) of 1986.[15] As a practical matter, individual states implement UOCAVA.

text: U.S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, or the United States Virgin Islands are not allowed to vote in U.S. national and presidential elections, as these U.S. territories belong to the United States but are not part of the United States. The U.S. Constitution requires a voter to be resident in one of the 50 states or in the District of Columbia to vote in federal elections. To say that the Constitution does not require extension of federal voting rights to U.S. territories residents does not, however, exclude the possibility that the Constitution may permit their enfranchisement under another source of law.[63]

text: A citizen who has never resided in the United States can vote if a parent is eligible to vote in certain states.[64] In some of these states the citizen can vote in local, state and federal elections, in others in federal elections only.

text: Puerto Rico[edit]

text: Puerto Rico is an insular area — a United States territory that is neither a part of one of the fifty states nor a part of the District of Columbia, the nation's federal district. Insular areas, such as Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, are not allowed to choose electors in U.S. presidential elections or elect voting members to the U.S. Congress. This grows out of Article I and Article II of the United States Constitution, which specifically mandate that electors are to be chosen by "the People of the several States". In 1961, the 23rd amendment to the constitution extended the right to choose electors to the District of Columbia.

text: Any U.S. citizen who resides in Puerto Rico (whether a Puerto Rican or not) is effectively disenfranchised at the national level. Although the Republican Party and Democratic Party chapters in Puerto Rico have selected voting delegates to the national nominating conventions participating in U.S. presidential primaries or caucuses, U.S. citizens not residing in one of the 50 states or in the District of Columbia may not vote in federal elections.

text: Various scholars (including a prominent U.S. judge in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit) conclude that the U.S. national-electoral process is not fully democratic due to U.S. government disenfranchisement of U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico.[65][66]

text: As of 2010[update], under Igartúa v. United States, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is judicially considered not to be self-executing, and therefore requires further legislative action to put it into effect domestically. Judge Kermit Lipez wrote in a concurring opinion, however, that the en banc majority's conclusion that the ICCPR is non-self-executing is ripe for reconsideration in a new en banc proceeding, and that if issues highlighted in a partial dissent by Judge Juan R. Torruella were to be decided in favor of the plaintiffs, United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico would have a viable claim to equal voting rights .[63]

text: Congress has in fact acted in partial compliance with its obligations under the ICCPR when, in 1961, just a few years after the United Nations first ratified the ICCPR, it amended our fundamental charter to allow the United States citizens who reside in the District of Columbia to vote for the Executive offices. See U.S. Constitutional Amendment XXIII.51. Indeed, a bill is now pending in Congress that would treat the District of Columbia as "a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives", and permit United States citizens residing in the capitol to vote for members of the House of Representatives. See District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, S.160, 111th Congress (passed by the Senate, February 26, 2009) (2009).52  However, the United States has not taken similar "steps" with regard to the five million United States citizens who reside in the other U.S. territories, of which close to four million are residents of Puerto Rico. This inaction is in clear violation of the United States' obligations under the ICCPR".[63]

text: Accessibility[edit]

text: Federal legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA, or "Motor-Voter Act") and the Help America Vote Act of 2001 (HAVA) help to address some of the concerns of disabled and non-English speaking voters in the United States.

text: Some studies have shown that polling places are inaccessible to disabled voters.[67] The Federal Election Commission reported that, in violation of state and federal laws, more than 20,000 polling places across the nation are inaccessible, depriving people with disabilities of their fundamental right to vote.

text: In 1999, the Attorney General of the State of New York ran a check of polling places around the state to see if they were accessible to voters with disabilities and found many problems. A study of three upstate counties of New York found fewer than 10 percent of polling places fully compliant with state and federal laws.[68]

text: Many polling booths are set in church basements or in upstairs meeting halls where there are no ramps or elevators. This means problems not just for people who use wheelchairs, but for people using canes or walkers too. And in most states people who are blind do not have access to Braille ballot to vote; they have to bring someone along to vote for them. Studies have shown that people with disabilities are more interested in government and public affairs than most and are more eager to participate in the democratic process. [67] Many election officials urge people with disabilities to vote absentee, however some disabled individuals see this as an inferior form of participation.[69]

text: Voter turnout is lower among the disabled. In the 2012 United States presidential election 56.8% of people with disabilities reported voting, compared to the 62.5% of eligible citizens without disabilities.[70]

text: Candidacy requirements[edit]

text: Jurisprudence concerning candidacy rights and the rights of citizens to create a political party are less clear than voting rights. Different courts have reached different conclusions regarding what sort of restrictions, often in terms of ballot access, public debate inclusion, filing fees, and residency requirements, may be imposed.

text: In Williams v. Rhodes (1968), the United States Supreme Court struck down Ohio ballot access laws on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. However, it subsequently upheld such laws in several other cases. States can require an independent or minor party candidate to collect signatures as high as five percent of the total votes cast in a particular preceding election before the court will intervene.

text: The Supreme Court has also upheld a state ban on cross-party endorsements (also known as electoral fusion) and primary write-in votes.

text: Noncitizen voting[edit]

text: More than 40 states or territories, including colonies before the Declaration of Independence, have at some time allowed noncitizens who satisfied residential requirements to vote in some or all elections. This in part reflected the strong continuing immigration to the United States. Some cities like Chicago, towns or villages (in Maryland) today allow noncitizen residents to vote in school or local elections.[71][19][72][73] In 1875, the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett noted that "citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote".[74] Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections.[75]


document_title: Fn key

question_text: where is the fn key on a dell keyboard

question_tokens: where is the fn key on a dell keyboard

text: Fn key

text: Compact layouts[edit]

text: Typically, in a compact layout the main area of the keyboard (containing the letter keys) is kept in much the same layout as with a full-sized keyboard, and the numeric keypad is moved to share a group of central keys. This allows typists to enter text without having to learn a new layout. The symbol that is accessed through pressing Fn is often printed on the key in a smaller font, a box, or different color (usually blue but sometimes orange).

text: This 78-key UK layout is taken from the Apple iBook. Characters in blue are accessed through the Fn key, but functions on the top row can be accessed without Fn key in Mac OS X.

text: Technical details[edit]

text: Fn is a modifier key, and works like other modifiers keys, such as Ctrl, Shift and AltGr. For a standard modifier key, the microcontroller inside the keyboard sends a scancode for the modifier itself, which is then interpreted by the operating system and combined with other simultaneous key-presses. The Fn key is a form of meta-modifier key, in that it causes the operating system to see altered scancodes when other keys on the keyboard are pressed. This allows the keyboard to directly emulate a full-sized keyboard, so the operating system can use standard keymaps designed for a full-sized keyboard. However, because the operating system has no notion of the Fn key, the key can not normally be remapped in software, unlike all other standard keyboard keys.

text: While it is most common for the Fn key processing to happen directly in the keyboard micro-controller, offering no knowledge to the main computer of whether the Fn key was pressed, some manufacturers, like Lenovo, perform this mapping in BIOS running on the main CPU, allowing remapping the Fn key by modifying the BIOS interrupt handler;[1] and Apple, in which the Fn key is mappable and serves other uses too, as triggering the Dictation function by pressing the Fn key twice.

text: In addition to being mapped to standard keyboard keys like Scroll Lock and Num Lock, the Fn key combinations may also be mapped to control system interfaces to change the LCD brightness, VGA output, or speaker volume on most laptop computers.

text: Fn and Control key placement[edit]

text: There is not yet an agreed-upon standard for the placement of the Fn key, although most manufacturers have elected to place it alongside a shrunken and/or displaced left Control key. Because the Control key is most frequently associated with OS and application shortcuts (such as Control+S to save a document, or Control+Shift+Escape to launch the Task Manager in modern versions of Microsoft Windows) altering its size and placement is often regarded as inconvenient for users accustomed to the larger left Control key on IBM PC-style keyboards commonly used for desktop computers.[2][3][4][5][6]

text: The majority of portable computer manufacturers today (including HP, Dell, and Samsung) currently place the Fn key between the left Control key and the left Windows key, making it the second key from the left on the bottom row of the keyboard. This usually means that the Control key is reduced in size, but allows it to remain in the lowest-left position on the keyboard.

text: Conversely, Lenovo currently arrange keyboards on their ThinkPad computers with the Fn key as the lowest-left, making Control the second-from-left on the bottom row. This arrangement is currently unique to ThinkPads amongst all laptops shipped with Windows, but it is one that has been in place since the modern ThinkPad product line was introduced by IBM in 1992. IBM designers rationalised that since the Fn key was used to control features that in some cases had no other physical or software controls (for example, the ThinkLight keyboard-illumination lamp, which is switched only by the Fn+PgUp keys), the Fn key should have the more prominent position on the keyboard. Notably, IBM did not include Windows keys on any of their keyboards until 2006, which meant that though the left Control key was displaced by the Fn key, neither it nor the left Alt key needed to be made smaller. The inclusion of Windows keys on ThinkPad models from mid-2006 onwards was achieved mainly by shrinking the left Alt key, which means that ThinkPad keyboards now generally have larger left Control keys than those of many other manufacturers, and are unique in preserving on laptops the Control; Windows; Alt key arrangement used on most desktop keyboards.

text: Apple also place the Fn key at the bottom left of the keyboard, displacing and shrinking the left Control key, though this is less controversial as macOS, the main operating system for most Apple laptops, is much less reliant on the Control key for shortcuts and modifiers than Windows or Unix-like operating systems.

text: This inconsistency between manufacturers, and the overall issue of Control key shrinkage, has long been a point of contention between laptop purchasers and users, which is aggravated by the fact that on most keyboards the Fn key is mapped at the hardware level and so cannot be remapped (that is, reconfigured or virtually "moved") at the OS level.[7] Lenovo, however, have since circa 2011 allowed users to reverse the Fn and left Control key arrangement via a BIOS setting.[8] A different solution, which side-steps the Fn key placement issue altogether, is to remap the Caps-Lock key as Control.[9] This emulates the layout of the IBM Model F keyboard for the original IBM PC, which placed the Caps-Lock key where right Control is found on modern keyboards, a location that is favoured by some Vim and Emacs users because of its prominent location and long-time use on Unix workstations.

text: Control Key Preference Factors[edit]

text: This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (September 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Paramount seems to be whether the user keeps their palm stationary on a wrist rest or not. Other factors include the control key's size, displacement, and position relative to the left-shift key.

text: A touch typist who prefers to keep their palm resting on a fixed position has difficulty reaching a lower-left control, whereas they can reach a right-displaced control without palm movement. Executing a control-and-shift operation with a right-displaced-control involves curling the little finger slightly underneath the ring-finger. Control key combinations involving the upper-left of the keyboard, including the keys (1, Q, W, 2) require either moving the hand, or using the right-control key with the opposite hand.

text: A user who hovers their hands and/or moves them laterally may prefer the lower-left control, as combined with movement of the palm, it offers a more open access to the leftmost keys. It also allows control-and-shift operations to be performed without curling the little finger underneath. Some workarounds include using little-finger-shift and ring-finger-control or thumb-control presses. Such change to the point of origin does reduce the useful radius of the first four fingers across the keyboard, yet may be more ergonomic for the hand.

text: On a fullsize keyboard, some users access the lower-left Control key using the side of their palm, a technique which is not generally possible on shallow throw laptop keyboards with wrist rests.

text: Common Fn key features[edit]

text: Fn key features vary from keyboard to keyboard, but the common ones are the follow:

text:
Turn the laptop's internal speaker volume up and down
Mute the laptop's internal speaker
Increase or decrease the monitor's brightness or contrast
Activate an external monitor for giving a presentation
Activate Stand By mode
Hibernate the laptop
Eject a CD/DVD
Lock the keyboard[10]