Section 1973 - Transferred

3 Analyses of this statute by attorneys

  1. California Enacts Two Laws Aimed At Combating Human Trafficking

    LittlerMichael G. CongiuOctober 3, 2018

    The business and establishments affected by the new posting mandate include: On-sale general public premises licensees under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act; Adult or sexually oriented businesses; Primary airports; Intercity passenger rail or light rail stations; Bus stations; Truck stops;2 Emergency rooms within general acute care hospitals; Urgent care centers; Farm labor contractors; Privately operated job recruitment centers; Roadside rest areas; Businesses or establishments that offer massage or bodywork services for compensation; and Hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast inns. The notice must be at least 81/2 inches by 11 inches in size, written in a 16-point font, provided in English, Spanish, and in one other language that is the most widely spoken language in the county where the establishment is located, as required by the federal Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973 et seq.), unless English or Spanish is the most widely spoken language, and shall state the following: If you or someone you know is being forced to engage in any activity and cannot leave—whether it is commercial sex, housework, farm work, construction, factory, retail, or restaurant work, or any other activity—text 233-733 (Be Free) or call the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 1-888-373-7888 or the California Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking (CAST) at 1-888-KEY-2-FRE(EDOM) or 1-888-539-2373 to access help and services. The notice must also state that “victims of slavery and human trafficking are protected under United States and California law,” and note that the hotlines are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, toll-free, operated by a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization, anonymous and confidential, accessible in more than 160 languages, and able to provide help, referral to services, training, and general information.

  2. Supreme Court Decides Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

    Faegre Baker DanielsStephanie BoxellApril 21, 2016

    Then, it adjusts the grid, “to the extent practicable,” to further the interests of (a) population equality, (b) geographic compactness and continuity, (c) communities of interest, (d) locality boundaries, (e) visible geographic features, including undivided tracts, and (f) political competitiveness, to the extent that this interest does not detract from the others. Finally, the Commission adjusts the resulting boundaries as necessary to comply with the United States Constitution and the Federal Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973, et seq. The Voting Rights Act contains a non-retrogression requirement: it “forbids the use of new reapportionment plans that would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.”

  3. Justin Levitt Before the New York State Bar Association Committee on Attorneys in Public Service

    Brennan Center for JusticeFebruary 11, 2010

    Two sections of the Act are particularly important to New York redistricting: section 2 and section 5.Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act blocks district lines that deny minority voters an equal opportunity “to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b). It applies whether the denial is intentional, or an unintended end result. Courts applying the Act in the redistricting context essentially test whether the way that a district is drawn takes decisive political power away from a cohesive minority bloc that has otherwise suffered discrimination in the region.