Sex discrimination : employment discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

"May 1995."

Religious discrimination : employment discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

"January 2002 (Revised)."

Race & color discrimination : employment discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

"January 2002 (Revised)."

National origin discrimination : employment discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended /

"January 2002 (Revised)."

Sex discrimination : employment discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

"January 2002 (Revised)."

Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights on the Civil Rights Act of 1990.

Item 288-A

The voting rights act, unfulfilled goals : a report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.

Item 288-A

Language minority, illiteracy, and voting data used in making determinations for the Voting rights act amendments of 1975 (Public law 94-73).

Item 142-C

Aeronautical statutes and related material ; the Civil aeronautics act of 1938, as amended and other provisions relating to civil aeronautics.

Subtitle varies.

Annual report on the status of the civil rights and equal opportunity program to the Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on Environmental and Public Works, United States Senate.

Title from cover.

Annual report on the status of the civil rights and equal opportunity program to the Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on Public Works, United States Senate.

Title from cover.

The Voting Rights Act, Shelby County, and Redistricting: Improving Estimates of Racially Polarized Voting in a Multiple-Election Context

The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County has severely limited the power of the Voting Rights Act. I argue that Congressional attempts to pass a new coverage formula are unlikely to gain the necessary Republican support. Instead, I propose a new strategy that takes a “carrot and stick” approach. As the stick, I suggest amending Section 3 to eliminate the need to prove that discrimination was intentional. For the carrot, I envision a competitive grant program similar to the highly successful Race to the Top education grants. I argue that this plan could pass the currently divided Congress.

Without Congressional action, Section 2 is more important than ever before. A successful Section 2 suit requires evidence that voting in the jurisdiction is racially polarized. Accurately and objectively assessing the level of polarization has been and continues to be a challenge for experts. Existing ecological inference methods require estimating polarization levels in individual elections. This is a problem because the Courts want to see a history of polarization across elections.

I propose a new 2-step method to estimate racially polarized voting in a multi-election context. The procedure builds upon the Rosen, Jiang, King, and Tanner (2001) multinomial-Dirichlet model. After obtaining election-specific estimates, I suggest regressing those results on election-specific variables, namely candidate quality, incumbency, and ethnicity of the minority candidate of choice. This allows researchers to estimate the baseline level of support for candidates of choice and test whether the ethnicity of the candidates affected how voters cast their ballots.

A “very limited” effect or a “seismic” impact? A study of the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the Courts of Northern Ireland

This article focuses on the question of what impact the Human Rights Act 1998 has had in practice on the courts of Northern Ireland. How frequently are human rights arguments made in the course of cases in this jurisdiction, and to what extent do such arguments affect outcomes of cases? In order to assess the impact of the Act, the use of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Northern Irish courts during four periods of time is examined. These are, firstly, prior to the passing of the Act in November 1998; secondly, between the Act’s passing and its coming into force in October 2000; thirdly, the first three years after the coming into force of the Act (October 2000 until October 2003); and fourthly, the three years between October 2006 and October 2009.