document_title: Voting rights in the United States

question_text: when did non property owners get to vote

question_tokens: when did non property owners get to vote

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] Men without property and women were largely prohibited from voting. 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 have significantly expanded access to the ballot to include non-Protestants, non-whites, those who lack wealth, 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: Inning

question_text: who bats first in baseball home or visitor

root

text: Inning

text: Gameplay[edit]

text: Each half-inning formally starts when the umpire calls "Play" or "Play ball". A full inning consists of six outs, three for each team; and, in Major League Baseball and most other adult leagues, a regulation game consists of nine innings. The visiting team bats in the first half-inning, the top of the inning, derived from the position of the visiting team at the top line of a baseball line score. The home team's half of an inning is the bottom of the inning, and the break between halves of an inning is the middle of the inning. If the home team is leading in the middle of the final scheduled inning, or scores to take the lead in the bottom of the final scheduled inning, the game immediately ends in a home victory.

tag: p

text: In most leagues, if the score is tied after the final scheduled inning, the game goes into extra innings until an inning ends with one team ahead of the other. In Japanese baseball, however, games end if tied after 12 innings (or, in postseason play in Nippon Professional Baseball, 15 innings). For the 2011 and 2012 NPB season, a game also ended in a tie if a regular-season game has reached its 3-hour, 30-minute time limit and both teams are tied. As in the case of the ninth inning, a home team which scores to take a lead in any extra inning automatically wins, and the inning (and the game) is considered complete at that moment regardless of the number of outs.  This is commonly referred to as a "walk-off" situation, since the last play results in the teams walking off the field because the game is over. However, road teams can't earn a "walk-off" victory by scoring the go-ahead run in extra innings, unlike in ice hockey where the team (either home or away) scoring first in overtime automatically wins.

text: A baseball game can be shorter than scheduled innings if it is interrupted by rain (or other bad weather). Such a game, called a rain out, is often preceded by a rain delay, a pause in the game during which the umpires will try to determine if the weather will allow the game to continue. If so, the game will simply be delayed until the rain stops, and then play will resume. If not, the umpires will announce a rain out and play will be suspended for the day. The game may have to be replayed in its entirety at a later date, but under certain circumstances, a game shortened because of rain can count as an official game, and the team that was ahead at the time the game was called will be awarded the win. See the article on rainout (sports) for further details.[3]

text: Professional baseball games[4] as well as college baseball games are scheduled for nine innings[5].  High school games[6] and College softball are scheduled for seven innings[7], as are some minor league baseball doubleheaders[8].  College games may be shortened to seven innings if one team's score is ahead by a minimum of ten runs[5].  Little League games are scheduled for six innings and may be shortened further (auto-forfeit) if a team has an overwhelming scoring lead.[9]

text: Terminology[edit]

text: Ending a half-inning is referred to as "retiring the side".  A half-inning in which all batters are put out without taking a base is referred to as a "one-two-three inning". The number of innings a pitcher is in a game is measured by the innings pitched statistic.

text: In US English, baseball terminology is sometimes found in non-sports usage in a tense situation: "it's the bottom of the ninth [inning]" (sometimes adding, "with two outs"), meaning "there isn't much time to turn things around here".

text: While inning is the standard baseball term, there is at least one literary instance, of innings being used in a baseball context. This occurs in the story "Baseball Hattie" by Damon Runyon, who refers to the seventh innings of a Phillies-Giants game.


document_title: List of oldest living people

question_text: who is the oldest living person right now

text: List of oldest living people

text: This is a list of the 100 oldest people who have been verified to be alive within the last one year and whose death has not been reported by a reliable source. It is estimated that there are between 150 and 600 living people who have reached the age of 110.[1][2] The true number is uncertain as not all supercentenarians are known to researchers at a given time and some claims cannot be validated or are fraudulent.[1] Since all the people on this list have lived to at least the age of 110, all of them are supercentenarians.

text: Upon the death of Nabi Tajima of Japan on 21 April 2018, Chiyo Miyako, also of Japan, became the world's oldest living person.[3]

text: 100 oldest living people

text:
No.
Name
Sex
Birth date
Age as of 30 May 2018
Place of residence

1
Chiyo Miyako[3]
F
2 May 1901
7004427620000000000♠117 years, 28 days
Japan

2
Masima Leonora Noel[4]
F
9 December 1901
7004425410000000000♠116 years, 172 days
Grenada

3
Dorrisile Dervis[5]
F
25 December 1901
7004425250000000000♠116 years, 156 days
United States[a]

4
Giuseppina Projetto[3]
F
30 May 1902
7004423690000000000♠116 years, 0 days
Italy

5
Tava Colo[6]
F
22 December 1902
7004421630000000000♠115 years, 159 days
France (Réunion)

6
Kane Tanaka[3]
F
2 January 1903
7004421520000000000♠115 years, 148 days
Japan

7
Maria Giuseppa Robucci[3]
F
20 March 1903
7004420750000000000♠115 years, 71 days
Italy

8
Shimoe Akiyama[3]
F
19 May 1903
7004420150000000000♠115 years, 11 days
Japan

9
Olga Yvonne Agar[7]
F
28 June 1903
7004419750000000000♠114 years, 336 days
Mauritius

10
Maximina Pereira da Silva[8]
F
10 September 1903
7004419010000000000♠114 years, 262 days
Brazil

11
Magdalena Oliver Gabarro[9]
F
31 October 1903
7004418500000000000♠114 years, 211 days
Spain

12
Lucile Randon[3]
F
11 February 1904
7004417470000000000♠114 years, 108 days
France

13
Shin Matsushita[3]
F
30 March 1904
7004416990000000000♠114 years, 61 days
Japan

14
Anonymous of Fukuoka[10]
F
4 May 1904
7004416640000000000♠114 years, 26 days
Japan

15
Maria Vikentyevna Kononovich[11]
F
27 May 1904
7004416410000000000♠114 years, 3 days
Belarus

16
Gabrielle Valentine des Robert[3]
F
4 June 1904
7004416330000000000♠113 years, 360 days
France

17
Lessie Brown[3]
F
22 September 1904
7004415230000000000♠113 years, 250 days
United States

18
Olive Boar[3]
F
29 September 1904
7004415160000000000♠113 years, 243 days
United Kingdom

19
Magdalena Vitoria de Jesus[12]
F
25 December 1904
7004414290000000000♠113 years, 156 days
Brazil

20
Jeanne Bot[3]
F
14 January 1905
7004414090000000000♠113 years, 136 days
France

21
Shigeyo Nakachi[3]
F
1 February 1905
7004413910000000000♠113 years, 118 days
Japan

22
Kame Ganeko[3]
F
10 April 1905
7004413230000000000♠113 years, 50 days
Japan

23
Antonia Valderrama Ocampo[13]
F
11 April 1905
7004413220000000000♠113 years, 49 days
Mexico

24
Ellen Gibb[3]
F
26 April 1905
7004413070000000000♠113 years, 34 days
Canada

25
Clara Anderson[3]
F
2 July 1905
7004412400000000000♠112 years, 332 days
United States

26
Anonymous of Kyoto[3]
F
16 July 1905
7004412260000000000♠112 years, 318 days
Japan

27
Geertje Kuijntjes[3]
F
19 July 1905
7004412230000000000♠112 years, 315 days
Netherlands

28
Katerina Kornarou[14]
F
25 July 1905
7004412170000000000♠112 years, 309 days
Greece

Masazō Nonaka[3]
M
25 July 1905
7004412170000000000♠112 years, 309 days
Japan

30
Osugi Sogo[3]
F
13 August 1905
7004411980000000000♠112 years, 290 days
Japan

31
Hester Ford[3]
F
15 August 1905
7004411960000000000♠112 years, 288 days
United States

32
Iris Westman[3]
F
28 August 1905
7004411830000000000♠112 years, 275 days
United States

33
Tsukimi Kishi[3]
F
31 August 1905
7004411800000000000♠112 years, 272 days
Japan

34
Mariannina Genovese[3]
F
15 October 1905
7004411350000000000♠112 years, 227 days
Italy

Gustav Gerneth[15]
M
15 October 1905
7004411350000000000♠112 years, 227 days
Germany[b]

Manoel Dionisio da Silva[16]
M
15 October 1905
7004411350000000000♠112 years, 227 days
Brazil

37
Lucille Treccase[3]
F
18 October 1905
7004411320000000000♠112 years, 224 days
United States

38
Kura Bingo[3]
F
20 October 1905
7004411300000000000♠112 years, 222 days
Japan

39
Diega Cammalleri[3]
F
23 October 1905
7004411270000000000♠112 years, 219 days
Italy

40
Kimi Asanuma[3]
F
3 November 1905
7004411160000000000♠112 years, 208 days
Japan

Mina Kitagawa[3]
F
3 November 1905
7004411160000000000♠112 years, 208 days
Japan

42
Misao Uemura[3]
F
7 November 1905
7004411120000000000♠112 years, 204 days
Japan

43
Maggie Kidd[17]
F
8 December 1905
7004410810000000000♠112 years, 173 days
United States

44
Isabel Castaño Restrepo[18]
F
11 January 1906
7004410470000000000♠112 years, 139 days
United States[c]

45
Elvira Moguel[19]
F
25 January 1906
7004410330000000000♠112 years, 125 days
Mexico

46
Guerina Amedei[3]
F
31 January 1906
7004410270000000000♠112 years, 119 days
Italy

47
Margaret Vivian[3]
F
25 February 1906
7004410020000000000♠112 years, 94 days
Australia[d]

48
Therese Fenners[20]
F
8 March 1906
7004409910000000000♠112 years, 83 days
Germany

49
Anna Benericetti-Cimatti[3]
F
22 March 1906
7004409770000000000♠112 years, 69 days
Italy

50
Julie Montabord[3]
F
17 April 1906
7004409510000000000♠112 years, 43 days
France (Martinique)

51
J. Lillian Stubbs[3]
F
30 April 1906
7004409380000000000♠112 years, 30 days
United States

52
Richard Arvin Overton[3]
M
11 May 1906
7004409270000000000♠112 years, 19 days
United States

53
Tekla Juniewicz[3]
F
10 June 1906
7004408970000000000♠111 years, 354 days
Poland[e]

54
Mazie Ford[21]
F
28 June 1906
7004408790000000000♠111 years, 336 days
United States

55
Reatha Robinson[22]
F
17 July 1906
7004408600000000000♠111 years, 317 days
United States

Marie-Louise Taterode[23]
F
17 July 1906
7004408600000000000♠111 years, 317 days
France

57
Minnie Whicker[24]
F
24 July 1906
7004408530000000000♠111 years, 310 days
United States

58
Mathilde Mange[25]
F
10 August 1906
7004408360000000000♠111 years, 293 days
Germany

59
Elisabeth Tränkner[26]
F
11 August 1906
7004408350000000000♠111 years, 292 days
Germany

60
Kiku Aoyama[27]
F
4 September 1906
7004408110000000000♠111 years, 268 days
Japan

61
Josefa Santos González[28]
F
7 September 1906
7004408080000000000♠111 years, 265 days
Spain

62
Grace Catherine Jones[29]
F
16 September 1906
7004407990000000000♠111 years, 256 days
United Kingdom

63
Helen White[30]
F
21 September 1906
7004407940000000000♠111 years, 251 days
United States

64
Louise Schaaf[31]
F
16 October 1906
7004407690000000000♠111 years, 226 days
United States[f]

65
Natsu Kotsuka[32]
F
18 October 1906
7004407670000000000♠111 years, 224 days
Japan

66
Valentine Ligny[33]
F
22 October 1906
7004407630000000000♠111 years, 220 days
France

Carmela Velardi[34]
F
22 October 1906
7004407630000000000♠111 years, 220 days
Italy

68
Seki Inagaki[27]
F
4 November 1906
7004407500000000000♠111 years, 207 days
Japan

69
Lydia Smuda[35]
F
6 November 1906
7004407480000000000♠111 years, 205 days
Germany

70
Beulah Meloche[36]
F
23 November 1906
7004407310000000000♠111 years, 188 days
United States

71
George Feldman[37]
M
2 December 1906
7004407220000000000♠111 years, 179 days
United States

Anna Mehlberg[38]
F
2 December 1906
7004407220000000000♠111 years, 179 days
Germany

73
Adma Tura[39]
F
25 December 1906
7004406990000000000♠111 years, 156 days
France[g]

74
Tsunahei Ogawa[40]
M
9 January 1907
7004406840000000000♠111 years, 141 days
Japan

75
Kaoru Ueda[41]
F
10 January 1907
7004406830000000000♠111 years, 140 days
Japan

76
Hildegard Lange[42]
F
12 January 1907
7004406810000000000♠111 years, 138 days
Germany

Arcadia Aguilar Noyola[43]
F
12 January 1907
7004406810000000000♠111 years, 138 days
Mexico

78
Czeslawa Lasiewicz[44][45][better source needed]
F
14 January 1907
7004406790000000000♠111 years, 136 days
Poland

79
Tari Chiba[46]
F
19 January 1907
7004406740000000000♠111 years, 131 days
Japan

80
Francisca Casado Guzman[47]
F
31 January 1907
7004406620000000000♠111 years, 119 days
Mexico

81
Ellen Goodwill[48]
F
2 February 1907
7004406600000000000♠111 years, 117 days
United States

82
Sumie Yabune[49]
F
5 February 1907
7004406570000000000♠111 years, 114 days
Japan

83
Kameo Oya[50]
M
12 February 1907
7004406500000000000♠111 years, 107 days
Japan

84
Thelma McLeod[51]
F
13 February 1907
7004406490000000000♠111 years, 106 days
Australia

85
Christine Hoscheid[52]
F
16 February 1907
7004406460000000000♠111 years, 103 days
Germany

86
Sarah Patenaude Bruyère[53]
F
20 February 1907
7004406420000000000♠111 years, 99 days
Canada

87
Lillian Cox[54]
F
22 February 1907
7004406400000000000♠111 years, 97 days
United States

88
Sanae Uchiyama[40]
F
27 February 1907
7004406350000000000♠111 years, 92 days
Japan

89
Maria Branyas Morera[55]
F
4 March 1907
7004406300000000000♠111 years, 87 days
Spain[h]

90
Icie Clark[56]
F
19 March 1907
7004406150000000000♠111 years, 72 days
United States

91
Tame Yamaguchi[57]
F
20 March 1907
7004406140000000000♠111 years, 71 days
Japan

92
Shivakumara Swami[58]
M
1 April 1907
7004406020000000000♠111 years, 59 days
India

Helen Turner[59]
F
1 April 1907
7004406020000000000♠111 years, 59 days
United States

94
Merle Phillips[60]
F
2 April 1907
7004406010000000000♠111 years, 58 days
United States

95
Nora Ettori[61]
F
5 April 1907
7004405980000000000♠111 years, 55 days
Italy[i]

96
Adelaida Gonzalez Hernandez[62]
F
13 April 1907
7004405900000000000♠111 years, 47 days
Spain

97
Sumire Hishikawa[63]
F
21 April 1907
7004405820000000000♠111 years, 39 days
Japan

98
Sixta Tulia Aguinaga de Posada[64]
F
22 April 1907
7004405810000000000♠111 years, 38 days
United States[j]

99
Voncile Dry[65][66]
F
24 April 1907
7004405790000000000♠111 years, 36 days
United States

100
Fusa Tatsumi[67][better source needed]
F
25 April 1907
7004405780000000000♠111 years, 35 days
Japan

tag: table

text: Notes

text:
Jump up ^ Dervis was born in Haiti.
Jump up ^ Gerneth was born in Stettin, then part of the German Empire; it is now named Szczecin and located in Poland.
Jump up ^ Castaño Restrepo was born in Colombia.
Jump up ^ Vivian was born in the United Kingdom.
Jump up ^ Juniewicz was born in Lviv, Austria-Hungary. It is now located in Ukraine.
Jump up ^ Schaaf was born in the German Empire, which is today Germany.
Jump up ^ Tura was born in Kaytouli, then part of the Ottoman Empire. It is now located in Lebanon.
Jump up ^ Morera was born in San Francisco, California, United States.
Jump up ^ Ettori was born in São Paulo, Brazil.
Jump up ^ Posada was born in Colombia.

tag: ol


document_title: Law of Australia

question_text: what are the two types of law in australia

text: Law of Australia

text: History[edit]

text: Reception of English law[edit]

text: The legal institutions and traditions of Australian law are monocultural in character, reflecting its English origins.[6] When the British arrived in Australia, they considered the continent to be terra nullius, or land belonging to no-one, on the basis that the Aboriginal peoples already inhabiting the continent were too primitive to have lawful possession of the land. Under the English conception of international law at the time, when uninhabited lands were settled by English subjects the laws of England immediately applied to the settled lands.[7] As such, Aboriginal laws and customs, including native title to land, were not recognised. The reception of English law was clarified by the Australian Courts Act 1828 (UK), which provided that all laws and statutes in force in England at the date of enactment should be applied in the courts of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania) so far as those laws were applicable. Since Queensland and Victoria were originally part of New South Wales, the same date applies in those States for the reception of English law. South Australia adopted a different date for reception,[8] as did Western Australia.[9]

text: The earliest civil and criminal courts established from the beginnings of the colony of New South Wales were rudimentary, adaptive and military in character. Although legality was not always observed, the courts limited the powers of the Governor, and the law of the colony was at times more egalitarian than in Britain.[10]

text: By 1824, a court system based in essence on the English model had been established through Acts of the British Parliament.[11] The New South Wales Act 1823 provided for the establishment of a Supreme Court with the power to deal with all criminal and civil matters "as fully and amply as Her Majesty's Court of King's Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer at Westminster".[11] Inferior courts were also established, including courts of General or Quarter Sessions, and Courts of Requests.

text: Representative government emerged in the 1840s and 1850s, and a considerable measure of autonomy was given to local legislatures in the second half of the nineteenth century.[12] Colonial Parliaments introduced certain reforms such as secret ballots and female suffrage, which were not to occur in Britain until many years later. Nevertheless, Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament extending to the colonies could override contrary colonial legislation and would apply by "paramount force".[13] New doctrines of English common law continued to be treated as representing the common law of Australia. For example, the doctrine of the famous case of Donoghue v Stevenson from which the modern negligence law derived, was treated as being latent already within the common law at the time of reception.[14]

text: Federation and divergence[edit]

text: Following a number of constitutional conventions during the 1890s to develop a federal nation from the several colonies, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) was passed and came into force on 1 January 1901. Thus, although a British statute, this became Australia's Constitution.

text: Following federation, Britain's role in the government of Australia became increasingly nominal in the 20th century. However, there was little momentum for Australia to obtain legislative independence. The Australian States did not participate in the conferences leading up to the Statute of Westminster 1931, which provided that no British Act should be deemed to extend to the dominions without the consent of the dominion. The Australian Government did not invoke the provisions of the statute until 1942. The High Court of Australia also followed the decisions of the Privy Council during the first half of the twentieth century.

text: Complete legislative independence was finally established by the Australia Act 1986, passed by the United Kingdom Parliament. It removed the possibility of legislation being enacted at the consent and request of a dominion, and applied to the States as well as the Commonwealth. It also provided for the complete abolition of appeals to the Privy Council from any Australian court. The Australia Act represented an important symbolic break with Britain, emphasised by Queen Elizabeth II's visit to Australia to sign the legislation in her legally distinct capacity as the Queen of Australia.

text: Legislative independence has been paralleled by a growing divergence between Australian and English common law in the last quarter of the 20th century.[15] In addition, a large body of English law received in Australia has been progressively repealed in state parliaments, such as in New South Wales by the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969.

text: Australian Republicanism emerged as a movement in the 1990s, which aims eventually to change Australia's status as a constitutional monarchy to a republican form of government.

text: Sources of law[edit]

text: Discussion of the sources of Australian law is complicated by the federal structure, which creates two sources of written constitutional law: state and federal—and two sources of general statute law, with the federal Constitution determining the validity of State and federal statutes in cases where the two jurisdictions might overlap.

text: Constitutional law[edit]

text:
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

text: The Australian colonies became a federation in 1901 through the passing of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act by the British Parliament. The federal constitution was the product of nearly ten years of discussion, "with roots in both the British legal tradition and Australian democracy".[16]

text: The Constitution provided for the legislative power of the Commonwealth to be vested in a federal Parliament consisting of the Queen, a Senate and a House of Representatives. The role of the Queen in the legislative process lies in her responsibility to grant Royal Assent, a power exercised on her behalf by the Governor-General. The Queen has the highest role in the Assent to legislation in contemporary Australia.Without the Royal Assent there can be no law created or amended within the dominion of the Commonwealth of Australia and its States and Territories.

text: The legislative powers of the federal Parliament are limited to those set out under an enumerated list of subject matters in section 51 of the Constitution. These powers include a power to legislate on matters "incidental" to the other powers,[17] similar to the United States necessary and proper clause. The Parliament of the Commonwealth can also legislate on matters referred to it by the Parliament of one or more States.[18] In contrast, with a few exceptions[19] the State legislatures generally have plenary power to enact laws on any subject. However, federal laws prevail over State laws where there is any inconsistency.[2] The High Court of Australia has jurisdiction to determine disputes about whether a law is within power and consistent with the Constitution.[20]

text: Chapter III of the Constitution required the creation of the High Court of Australia, and confers power to establish other federal courts and to vest federal jurisdiction in State courts.

text: Australian courts could permit an appeal to the Privy Council on constitutional matters. The right of appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council was only abolished in 1975,[21] and from State courts in 1986.[22]

text: Australia does not have a constitutional bill of rights and there are few express rights guaranteed by the Constitution. However, certain indirect protections have been recognised by implication or as a consequence of other constitutional principles. For example, there is an implied guarantee of freedom of political communication.[23] Additionally, rights are protected indirectly through the separation of powers, which requires courts to be sufficiently independent and impartial from the other branches of government. Human rights in Australia are generally protected through statutes and the common law.

text: Statute law[edit]

text: If the government agrees that the changes are worthwhile, a Bill is drafted, usually by Parliamentary Counsel. The Bill is read and debated in both houses of parliament before it is either rejected, changed, or approved. An approved Bill must then receive the assent then handed down to either the Governor (State) or the Governor-General (Commonwealth). And then it must be put to the people through a Referendum and only a majority vote of all the States will ensure that law will be passed. Parliament often delegates legislation to local councils, statutory authorities and government departments, for sub or minor statute laws or rules such as Road Rules, but all law is answerable to the Commonwealth Constitution.

text: Most statutes are meant to be applied in the main not by legal practitioners and judges but by administrative decision makers.[24] Certain laws receive more judicial interpretation than others, either because more is at stake or because those who are affected are in a position to take the matter to court. Whilst the meanings presented to the court are often those that benefit the litigants themselves,[25] the courts are not bound to select one of the interpretations offered by the parties.[26]

text: Australian courts have departed from the traditional approach of interpreting statutes (the literal rule, the golden rule,[27] and the mischief rule[28]). The dominant approach is that rules are not to be applied rigidly because the overriding goal is to interpret the statute in accordance with the intentions of Parliament.[29] This so-called "purposive approach" has been reinforced by statute.[30] Legislation in all States and Territories allows recourse to extrinsic materials.[31]

text: In each Australian state, including the Commonwealth and the Australian Capital Territory, there is an official compilation of all new laws enacted by the Parliaments in such states. The Western Australian Consolidated Acts, Northern Territory Consolidated Acts, Queensland Consolidated Acts, South Australian Current Acts, New South Wales Consolidated Acts, Victorian Consolidated Acts, and the Tasmanian Consolidated Acts are the official compilation of laws and statutes in such Australian states. They contain statutes, Acts of Parliament, criminal law and many major topic areas. They are all enacted in chronological order and are normally enacted in statute.

text: The Commonwealth of Australia Consolidated Acts are all of the federal statutes and laws, including federal criminal law, enacted by the Parliament of Australia. The Australian Capital Territory Consolidated Acts are all of the enacted laws and statutes of the Australian Capital Territory that are enacted by the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly.

text: Common law[edit]

text: Common law in Australia, like in other former British colonies is the body of law developed from thirteenth century England to the present day, as case law or precedent, by judges, courts, and tribunals. However, after over a century of federation, there is a substantial divergence between English and Australian common law.[32]

text: Unlike the United States Supreme Court, the High Court of Australia, which was established in 1903, has a general appellate jurisdiction over the State Supreme Courts. This ensures there is a single uniform Australian common law.[5]:p 563

text: Until 1963, the High Court regarded decisions of the House of Lords binding,[33] and there was substantial uniformity between Australian and English common law. In 1978, the High Court declared that it was no longer bound by decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.[34][35]

text: International law[edit]

text: A bilateral treaty (between two nations) or a multilateral treaty (among more than two nations, or organised by an International body) can be a source of Australian law. Australia has entered into a substantial number of treaties.[36] Although treaties can legally be entered into by the executive government of the day (not necessarily Parliament), in practice treaties are tabled in both houses of Parliament 15 days prior to signing. They are generally organised and administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade who advise "The general position under Australian law is that treaties which Australia has joined, apart from those terminating a state of war, are not directly and automatically incorporated into Australian law. Signature and ratification do not, of themselves, make treaties operate domestically. In the absence of legislation, treaties cannot impose obligations on individuals nor create rights in domestic law. Nevertheless, international law, including treaty law, is a legitimate and important influence on the development of the common law and may be used in the interpretation of statutes."[37] Treaties can be implemented through executive action, and often existing laws are sufficient to ensure a treaty is honoured.

text: Areas of law[edit]

text: The main substantive areas of law in Australia include:

text:
Administrative law - which deals with the laws governing the lawful exercise of Executive power and the review of government decisions.
Constitutional law - which governs issues arising under the Australian Constitution, such as the validity of laws and the separation of powers.
Contract law - which governs agreements, and which is derived from and very similar to English contract law.
Corporations law - which includes the incorporation and regulation of companies and other collective entities.
Criminal law - which deals with crime and punishment, and is principally regulated by laws of the States and territories.
Environment and planning law - which governs land use and planning, and environmental protection, and is largely regulated by the States.
Equity - which is primarily concerned with unconscionable conduct, and supplements other areas of civil law such as contract and property law.
Family law - which is regulated by federal legislation. Disputes are usually heard in the Family Court of Australia.
Insolvency law - which governs the winding up of corporations, and is regulated largely by the federal Corporations Act 2001.
Intellectual property law - which governs copyright, designs, and patents, and is regulated largely by federal statutes.
Property law - which governs rights and obligations regarding personal and real property.
Tax law - which arises from federal and State statutes regulating taxation in Australia.
Tort law - which governs civil wrongs such as negligence, trespass, defamation, nuisance, conversion, and detinue.

tag: ul

text: The Australian Law Reform Commission investigates suggestions for reform raised by attorneys-general and in some jurisdictions, by members of the public.