- About Us
- Our Work
- Get Involved
- Support Us
Sign up to receive email updates from LDF.
At yesterday’s oral argument, the Justices grappled with the University of Texas’s articulation of what I will call “diversity within diversity,” referring to the consideration of distinctive characteristics of individuals within underrepresented minority groups.
Federal Court Rejects South Carolina’s Restrictive Voter ID Law for November Election; Allows Implementation in 201310/10/12Related Case or Issue:
(Washington, D.C) – In a significant voting rights development, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected South Carolina’s request under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to implement its discriminatory photo identification measure in time for the November 2012 elections.
The court will allow South Carolina to implement its law in 2013.
WASHINGTON -- A three-judge panel barred South Carolina's voter ID law from going into effect before the 2012 election on Wednesday, but said it could be implemented in elections beginning in 2013.
Statement of Debo P. Adegbile, Acting President & Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund after the U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument in College Diversity Case10/10/12Related Case or Issue:
Fisher v. University of Texas at Issue
For many students, college is the first time that they have meaningful interactions with people of other races. Because many of our nation’s neighborhoods and schools remain segregated, not by law but in fact, the opportunities to learn from, work with, and live alongside people who are different are often limited in American life. For decades, the United States Supreme Court has helped to break down these barriers through landmark rulings that paved he way for the nation’s universities to pursue the twin goals of academic excellence and broad diversity.