This is a preview. Log in through your library. Preview Journal Information Philosophy, the journal of The Royal Institute of Philosophy is published by Cambridge University Press quarterly in January, April, July and October. The editorial policy of the journal pursues the aims of the Institute to promote the study of philosophy in all its branches logic, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, social and political philosophy and the philosophies of religion, science, history, language, mind and education. Contributors are expected to avoid all needless technicality. Publisher Information Cambridge University Press is the publishing division of the University of Cambridge, one of the worldâs leading research institutions and winner of 81 Nobel Prizes. Cambridge University Press is committed by its charter to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe. It publishes over 2,500 books a year for distribution in more than 200 countries. Cambridge Journals publishes over 250 peer-reviewed academic journals across a wide range of subject areas, in print and online. Many of these journals are the leading academic publications in their fields and together they form one of the most valuable and comprehensive bodies of research available today. For more information, visit Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions Philosophy © 1978 Royal Institute of Philosophy Request PermissionsWhatwas the law of the jungle answer? Answer: The law of the jungleâ is an expression that has come to mean âevery man for himselfâ âanything goesâ âsurvival of the strongestâ âsurvival of the fittestâ âkill or be killedâ âdog eat dogâ or âeat or be eatenâ. What are the three laws of the jungle? Your complimentary articles Youâve read one of your four complimentary articles for this month. You can read four articles free per month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please Articles Iain King derives a universal moral law from a moral field study. Welcome to Africa! Iâm in the remote jungles of South Sudan, near the unmarked border with the Central African Republic roughly 5 degrees North and 23 degrees East, if you want to look it up. Most people here live in mud huts, spend their time farming small clearings in the forest, and are extremely poor. Never having met someone from Britain before, theyâre very generous, offering me pineapple, dried ants, and â their greatest gift â an explanation of right and wrong. The dried ants taste a bit like the crusty part of prawns, but more salty. I am curious to hear about how the insects are harvested, and how rival ant colonies fight it out. But I donât care which colony wins, or how many ants die. Lots of things die in the jungle. Ant wars are just evolution in action. But my reaction is very different when I hear about people here fighting and dying. A local man explains how they fear the notorious Lordâs Resistance Army â the armed guerrillas who prowl the forest, and who killed one of the villagers recently. The community leader complains itâs no longer safe to cultivate in the jungle, and a group of woman ululate to endorse his view. Now I feel sympathy. The villagerâs murder wasnât evolution in action, it was wrong. To me, and to the local people, it really was wrong. Weâre sure of that â as sure as we are that the mangos are yellow. I donât even need to have known the villager who was killed, my emotional reaction flows easily from what I imagine about other murders, even though Iâve never actually witnessed one. The Evolution of Moral Facts Itâs easy to theorise how a strong distaste for murder might have evolved. In my native England, as well as here in the jungle, groups of people who refrained from killing each other would have had greater survival chances, because they could trust each other and cooperate better. Played out over thousands of generations, communities of people with an instinctive revulsion for murder would win out. On some other matters, the moral laws of the jungle have evolved differently to my own. I donât want my daughter to marry as young as the girls here do. Local villagers are much more hospitable to strangers than I am in London. Most also support the death penalty, and want to have a powerful King again â views which make me queasy. Some of these differences we can accept Iâm happy for the villagers to be polygamous, but I wouldnât welcome polygamy in Britain. Some, though, I cannot the idea of the death penalty appals me, wherever it operates. Even though we can explain how our deeply held moral values have evolved through adaption to the environment, with different environments leading to different beliefs, it doesnât make us believe in them any less. Darwin was right, but murder is still wrong. You may have spotted an apparent chink in the reasoning here how can I accept the randomness of evolution, and yet elevate the products of this process â my revulsion at murder shared with the people here and my distaste for polygamy not shared â to the status of facts? The answer is that we are trapped within evolution. We cannot escape it. There are two ways to rebut this answer, both of them flawed. If you donât accept evolution, then come here and watch the anthills undergo natural selection for proof that Darwinâs theory was correct. If you accept evolution but donât rate the power of the instincts which that process has instilled in you, then I challenge you to prove you donât by jettisoning your own natural will to survive by allowing one of the jungle snakes to bite you. You canât, can you? Itâs because even an anything goesâ morality must hold something dear, even if itâs only the life of the person who propounds it. Jungle life proves just how real our evolved instincts are. The people here have formed their own vigilante militia, the arrow boysâ so named because arrows are their main weapons against the AK-47 rifles of the Lordâs Resistance Army. Arrow boys display all the martial virtues of courage and comradeship, and it is easy to see how a fighting force of brave team players is more formidable than a group of timid loners. We can speculate how the human reaction of courage in the face of a challenge has evolved to become a feature of the world. But here, and elsewhere, we can see that it actually is a survival imperative. These moral instincts may just be in our heads, but they are nevertheless still real. They are as real as the way the jungle birds fly out of the trees when I shout up at them. Our moral instincts are a fact of the world. Difficult Decisions Not all decisions in the jungle require moral thinking. Even though thereâs a right way and a wrong way to cut up a pineapple, itâs a skill, not a moral judgement. Decisions get more serious when the stakes are higher and the consequences shared. When food is scarce, villagers think carefully about who will get some and who will go without. At the top end of the spectrum, people here ponder who will stay, fight, and perhaps die, and who will escape, if the LRA come again. Deciding whether to abandon the fighting men of the village or stand with them definitely requires ethics. Supposing they ask me to fight with them. Should I? Some â mostly in the economics faculties of Western universities â say it would be rational for me to be selfish when these decisions come. They say I should do whatâs best for me, and if I can persuade others of this, all the better. But this ignores how I was brought up abandoning others seems deeply wrong . Itâs down there with robbery, being mean, and refusing to help people who really need it. That sort of rationality is not for me â or many people. Thankfully, itâs not for the people here, either, who could exploit me just as I could exploit them, but donât. When difficult joint decisions come, both I and the people here will draw upon our instincts about the right thing to do. And if we agree, then that shared judgement is confirmed to both of us as morally correct. Where we differ there are three options. First, we can work something out between us â which means weâll decide between us what we agree on, so defining our shared moral law. Second, one of us can dictate to the others, and if the diktat is accepted then once again there is a shared ethic we all sometimes accept advice because it came from a reliable source, even if it seems wrong at first. Only in the third case, where there is still a disagreement, and where the dictator is rejected, will what might have become shared moral norms descend back into personal opinions. As we work out our differences â for example, dividing up the mangoes, but making sure sick people get the best fruit â generally, joint decisions will be made which should serve our common interests. This is so even though we may be mistaken about what our best interests are I loved eating the antelope they served me, but I found out later it was bad for me; and our interests include all the things we value â even things like making a sacrifice for other people, which might not seem in our interestsâ at all. Reconciling Interests You may now be expecting me to make the case for adding up everybodyâs happiness or benefit and trying to maximise it, as the utilitarians would do. After all, trying to satisfy my interests and those of the villagers does seem an awful lot like trying to generate the greatest happiness or benefit of the greatest number. But it doesnât quite work out like that. Not quite. You see, in the jungle, the way I reconcile my interests with those of other people is not for all of us to pour everything we care about into a pot then see which of the combination of satisfied wants would generate the most happiness benefit. If we did that, I could be completely outnumbered. If people here supported slavery for example I didnât ask them, then the total happiness might be maximised if I were made a slave. Not good. No, the way we reconcile interests is through empathy. We imagine ourselves in the position of other people. Empathy is the bedrock of human ethics. The ability to empathise is as strong in the jungles of South Sudan as it is in Britain. Empathy has evolved like other aspects of morality, and to all but the psychopathic 1% of people in the world who lack this capacity, it is a feature of the world as real as gravity. Some scientists reckon we really do feel the pain of others, imagining it in a near-identical way that we feel pain in our own bodies. Empathy is one-to-one, since we only imagine ourselves in the mind of one other person at a time. Even when I empathise with the peopleâ here â for example when I hear about the difficulties all the women face finding clean water â I am really imagining what it is like to be just one woman. I cannot imagine myself to be more than one person at a time, and neither can you. So if Iâm part of a group of four trying to decide what is right, I need to empathise with each of the other three in turn. For each, I and they will come to an agreement â and therefore define a norm of what is right â by balancing our interests if my time and effort is worth more to one of them than it is to me, then I will help them, and vice versa. But empathising one-to-one also sets boundaries it prevents me from becoming a slave, since the impact of this on my interests will exceed any benefit it could bring any single one of them, even if the total benefit to several of them would be larger. The Help Principle This leads to a principle which is simple but central Help someone if your time and effort is worth more to them than it is to you. This principle, letâs call it the Help Principleâ, is at the core of ethics â in Britain as well as in the jungle, and indeed wherever there are humans to be helped â which is just about everywhere. The idea that we should help someone if our time and effort is worth more to them than it is to us has many things going for it, ethically speaking. Here are just four of them First, its genesis. The Help Principle is real, in that the empathy which generates it can be observed and proven. It is also imaginedâ it is in our heads, just like right and wrong are in our heads. Hence, the genesis of the Help Principle provides a neat bridge between those who think right and wrong are Absolute Features Of The Universe, and those who think they are more like personal tastes. To humans like me, just like the jungle villagers of South Sudan, itâs both. Second, the Help Principle can be tested. This might not sound like much; after all, any ethical idea can be tested, in a way just see if you like what it recommends. But the Help Principle is different, because it is the direct application of observable facts. Empathy can be proven to motivate people; empathyâs fundamental association with our moral sentiments can also be tested through observation; and logic shows that this motivation leads directly to the Help Principle. So unlike, say, act in a way you would wish to become a universal lawâ Immanuel Kantâs categorical imperative, paraphrased, the Help Principle flows directly from drives shared by all non-psychopathic humans. Third, the Help Principle avoids the main problems which come with the utilitarian goal of trying to achieve the greatest happiness of the greatest number. As my hypothetical enslavement illustrated, maximising happiness can override human rights the individual gets squashed if sheâs going against the tide of the masses. The Help Principle avoids this danger because, it being based on one-to-one empathy, the individual remains central. Itâs not utilitarian, but quasi-utilitarian. When applied in groups, the Help Principle advocates choosing whichever option will benefit any individual the most, so long as all reciprocate the help they receive. The Help Principle and rights go together snugly, and thatâs good. Fourth, the Help Principle can be broadened into a whole set of principles and advice which fit together coherently and line up with most peopleâs moral intuitions â both in the developed West and in remote jungles. It can do this because our norms and instincts can be extended through a logical process, just as I can develop survival tips in the jungle from a few lessons and a bit of logic. So, Iâve learned that the best way to harvest mangoes is to throw a fallen fruit up into the branches to knock off the ripe ones. I then induce that I can apply this method to all the tall fruit trees in the forest. Similarly, if one deliberate and unjustified killing is wrong, then I can deduce that all deliberate and unjustified killings will be wrong, too. To use logic to extend the Help Principle, letâs think for a moment about empathy. It is because we empathise with others in the past and future as well as in the present that most people respect promises we rate the happiness a promise has already caused, even to a person who has since died, as well as the benefits which might come from breaking a promise. This means the Help Principle advocates promise-breaking only when the promise-breaking option brings benefits greater than the combined historical and future benefits of keeping the promise. This usually requires an unforeseen and reasonably unforeseeable change in the situation more important than the promise itself, arising after the promise was made. This is a practical approach to promises which makes promise-breaking rare but conceivable. The Help Principle makes promises count for something, but not for everything, which must be correct. Further Benefits of the Help Principle The Help Principle similarly makes lies manageable, too. Weâre not encouraged by it to lie if its in our benefit as long as no-one finds out â which is what greatest-happiness advocates might suggest. Nor are lies absolutely prohibited â the puritanical and Kantian approach which damns even white lies. Instead, the Help Principle suggests that we should deceive only if by doing so we can change behaviour in a way worth more than the trust lost, if the deception were to be discovered whether the deception is actually exposed or not. Sounds like a credible rule on lying to me. Furthermore, empathising with people in the past as well as the future means justice isnât just about either deterrents or blindly applying a code. It means punishments are issued which fit both the crime and the criminal. That chimes well with my instincts, and hopefully with yours, too. In fact, itâs very easy to expand the Help Principle into a very coherent set of ethics. Itâs far more coherent than, say, trying to maximise happiness just thinking about maximising happiness can make you very unhappy. The Help Principle offers a rule for our actions; it thinks about consequences; and it is based on the virtue of empathy. Hence, the Help Principle even manages to transcend the three main schools of ethics â systems based on character, rules and outcomes â the triumvirate of approaches which have governed Western moral thought for centuries. The set of ethics which emerge from the Help Principle is intuitively appealing, but best of all, it doesnât just explain our ideas of right and wrong, mapping out our moral reactions, replaying to us what we already know, think and feel it helps us fill in the gaps. Where weâre not so sure, it can offer advice. It answers the most basic question of moral philosophy What should we do?â, and its answer straddles the troublesome gulf between facts and values which has left many great minds scratching their heads. I leave the jungles of South Sudan happy, keen to apply the Help Principle elsewhere, and content that a problem has been solved. And the sweet flavour of mangoes has displaced the salty taste of dried ants from my mouth forever. © Iain King 2014 Iain King CBE is a former Fellow of Cambridge University, and author of How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All The Time Continuum, 2008. Iajuga pernah menjadi anggota acara televisi SBS, Law of the Jungle in Last Indian Ocean. Itulah perjalanan karier dari Yeonwoo eks MOMOLAND yang kini sukses berakting dan dirumorkan berkencan dengan Lee Min Ho. Kronologi Kontroversi Keisya Levronka VS Ivan Gunawan & Astrid Tiar. Natasha Cecilia Anandita 27 Juli 2022 Working Life.
In the savagery of the jungle, the rule is âEat or be eaten.â It seems that law of the jungle has made its way to college campuses. âAt Oxford, students now live in fear â they think cancelling each other will help them get aheadâ reads a headline from the British outlet the Telegraph, depicting a reality many warned would happen if cancel culture were allowed to rage unchecked. The once prestigious institution has followed its academic peers across the globe in becoming a hotbed of illiberal activity. Just last month, students protested a planned appearance by feminist scholar Kathleen Stock over her views on gender, claiming that allowing her to speak would be endorsing what they call âtransphobia.â Stockâs position that transgenderism is ideological nonsense ensured she inevitably became the target of activist students. Two years earlier, Oxford played host to a cadre of leftist professors who claimed that musical notation was a âcolonialist representational systemâ and that it was complicit in perpetuating white supremacy. Dominus illuminatio mea, âThe Lord is my light,â may be the official motto at Oxford, but the discourse going on at the university is anything but illuminating. It also should be cause for concern. The insanity occurring at the university has caused the students there to mutate into a new kind of beast, one more than willing to cannibalize others to achieve dominance. From the Telegraph article At parties and events, people live in fear of something they say or do being recorded. This is more than just the effects of the internet age. It is well-known that certain people, especially in student politics or journalism, often secretly audio-record the entire evening in the hope of catching someone out. And buried deeper in the article was an anecdote that would be hilarious if it werenât such a grim reminder of the state of college campuses. âI remember how, at the dawn of the invasion of Ukraine, there was a scramble among students to be the one who set up the Universityâs Ukrainian Society,â the author writes, adding Once formed, it was immediately added to some of the victorious foundersâ LinkedIn and Twitter bios, even though they were yet to do anything. In an ecosystem where all that matters is the perception of virtue, it should come as no surprise that the animals within will do whatever it takes to seem virtuous. They act like woke peacocks that are willing to kill other birds to be the most beautiful one of all. While this urge to hunt prey has unfortunate consequences for the state of higher education, it has even more dire consequences for the state of Western civilization. The law of the jungle at its core is that the strong will dominate the weak. The snake eats the mouse and is in turn consumed by the hawk. The point of civilization is to reject the natural, entropic state of things, to bring order to the chaos by establishing a society where the weak can coexist with the strong. The snake and the mouse and the hawk are all neighbors and only fight over politics or sports. By so callously looking for opportunities to destroy their opposition, to tear them apart with fang and claw, the students at Oxford backslide into a state of nature and barbarism. Once they leave campus, thereâs zero doubt the âeat or be eatenâ philosophy they so carefully honed at school will follow them. In a brilliant article from last year, historian Victor Davis Hanson warned that âAmericans will come to appreciate just how thin is the veneer of their civilizationâ and that âwe are relearning that what lies just beneath is utterly terrifying.â What lies beneath is the beast, the primal state of man. And itâs hungry. The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters and weâll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular âWe Hear Youâ feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
ChanyeolEXO Dapat Reaksi Keras Saat Tampil di Law of The Jungle, Apakah karena Kontroversi Lalu? 10 Desember 2020, 18:00 WIB. Entertainment Chanyeol dan Baekhyun EXO Hampir Bernama Uto dan Pia, Berikut Nama Panggung Teraneh di Sejarah K-Pop Kontroversi Chanyeol EXO, Pernyataan Resmi SM Entertainment Ini Buat Netizen Tak Puas 29 Oktober
Project Runwayâ Season 20 on Bravo How to Follow the Designers on Instagram Vanderpump Rulesâ Raquel Leviss Brings Tom Sandoval Flowers, Assures Sheâs Not a âHome-Wrecking Wh*reâ Kim Kardashian Schemes to Set Up KhloĂ© Kardashian With 365 Daysâ Star Michele Morrone âHeâs the Hottest Guyâ Project Runwayâ All-Stars Kara Saun and Nora Pagel Reflect On How They and the Bravo Hit Have Changed Since Season 1 In the eight episode Netflix reality survival entry Law of the Jungle Spanish title âLa ley de la selvaâ, two teams of competitors are dumped in a remote equatorial environment where theyâll face off in physical and mental challenges for a shot at two million pesos in prize money. Does teamwork make the dream work? Or will the âdilemmasâ periodically presented by the showâs unseen hand orient individual contestants toward what they can win for themselves over the benefit and well-being of the group? THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE STREAM IT OR SKIP IT? Opening Shot In a control room reminiscent of The Hunger Games, player profiles flicker on flat screens before weâre taken to a convoy of Land Rovers cruising down a rain-soaked highway. â12 players will be abandoned in the jungle,â narrator Diego Alfaro tells us. âBut before the action and the problems begin, theyâll spend the night in pairs and get to know each other.â The Gist As the contestants are led blindfolded into the jungle, we get a few introductory cutaways. Thereâs John, a musician and entrepreneur, who immediately challenges Layla, a student, about what tactics she might employ in the game. Leslie, a former co-star of MTV Latin Americaâs Acapulco Shore â itâs like Jersey Shore, but set in Guerrero â says sheâs here to prove who she really is after what viewers saw of her there. Cesar is a polygraph examiner, an analytical vocation the narrator tells us the series might obfuscate; Sandyâs competitorâs spirit is powered by the encouragement of her two children; Zoe is an activist; Gina is an athlete; Josue is a parkour enthusiast; and Paola, also known as âLittle Moth,â is a twerking instructor. And from one to twelve, every contestant on Law of the Jungle has a plan for the showâs prize purse. The question is how any of them will get it, and what might be left when they do. âLetâs figure out what your weaknesses and strengths are,â Cesar says to Zoe in the inky jungle darkness. Well, thereâs one guy whoâs not wasting any time establishing an abrasive, probing personality. But there are others. âIâm willing to do anything to win, even if it means skinning, cutting, grinding, hitting, fighting, knocking down,â John says in a confessional cutaway. âThe end justifies the means.â He also admits to the camera that heâll say anything, any lie, if there is personal benefit to him. And itâs quickly apparent how important traits like this will become, as Law of the Jungle reveals its first challenge and competitive structure. As denoted by host Yolanda Andrade, Orange Team and Blue Team will descend on an elaborate obstacle course âmissionâ involving cumbersome steel barrels, tunneling through dirt, delicate weight distribution, Cornhole-style target accuracy, and the use of fine motor skills while exhausted. But each team will also denote one outlier, âa player who wonât compete, but will influence the missionâs result.â And this is where Jungle introduces its âdilemmaâ prompts. For example, players can choose to add an obstacle for their own team, and gain $100,000 of the prize purse for themselves; alternatively, they can add an obstacle to the opposing teamâs mission, and gain $80,000 pesos. Like all other communications within the game, these prompts are handled via cumbersome tablets distributed to the contestants. What will the teams do when they reassemble, and learn about the outliersâ decisions? How will they establish team dynamics going forward, especially with the advent of these dilemma side hustles? And who will the âmissionâ winners choose to send to âthe purge,â an elimination round for whoever received the most votes against? Photo Netflix What Shows Will It Remind You Of? While the team basecamps in Law of the Jungle provide basic food, water, and shelter, itâs when the series starts to detail ways to win that it resembles the recent Netflix hit Outlast Jungle constantly stokes the friction between genuine teamwork and âlone wolfâ personal gain. And donât get this Law of the Jungle confused with that other Law of the Jungle, the reality/documentary series created by Kim Byung-man which tosses South Korean celebrities into wild remote environments. Our Take Itâs notable that a coiled snake is part of the Law of the Jungle logo. Even as it begins, with pairs of strangers plunged into deep woods overnights, the contestants here are a bold mix of overbearing, wary, suspicious, and the baldy opportunistic, all of which should act as accelerant on the flames of drama that Jungle is happy to tend. After their first mission, as Team Orange is making the best of their rudimentary accommodations, Gina says sheâs already at odds with teammate Fabian, who is decidedly more blunt. âI donât trust anyone. Not here for friends. Just money.â OK, Fabes, but what about the teamwork? For a lot of these contestants, the cash prize sits just beyond the frame. But they donât seem to have considered every aspect of just how theyâll get it. Itâs those darn dilemmas, see? In the aftermath of the first mission, as its winners are determining who they might vote down in the coming ceremony â three players will enter the purge, only two will leave â Blue Teamer Cesar is given the opportunity to contact Orangeâs Zoe via private message. It might afford his team some strategic leverage. But itâll also burn $20,000 of the prize money. Beyond all of the splashing in mud and zip line soaring and slippery climbing walls, these moral crossroads are where Law of the Jungle really makes its viewing bones. People have been screwing each other out of gains on reality shows for generations. But this time around, theyâre getting paid for it. Sex and Skin Lots of sweaty/soaking wet people swatting desperately at flies in this showâs steamy jungle setting, but beyond that itâs just F-bombs and B-words. Parting Shot The three Blue Teamers who accumulated the most down votes from Orangeâs control of the game have joined host Yolanda Andrade in a clearing, where they face an overgrown version of the block removal game Jenga. This is the dreaded âpurgeâ portion of Law of the Jungle, and only two of these three players will survive. Sleeper Star âKarma acts faster than you think!â As one of the first players to be confronted with a dilemma, Layla handles the pressure with a mixture of straight-up sass, intriguing strategy, misdirection via positivity, and frequent references to herself in the third person. âThat was like a planned strategy by Lay!â But it remains to be seen if her performance in the early going will guarantee a lengthy stay on The Law of the Jungle. Most Pilot-y Line âThe teams decided that Layla and Paola would not compete in this mission. This is where the good part begins. Both will be lured into taking a portion of the prize in exchange for making the mission more difficult for their teams. What will these players do? Will they be able to betray the people they just met? And if they do, what will they tell their teammates when they see them again after the mission?â Our Call STREAM IT. All of the contestants on The Law of the Jungle are outspoken in ways as different as their motivations for winning the prize money. Beyond the usual physical challenges, though, whatâs intriguing here is how each of them will navigate the moral crossroads theyâre presented with, which themselves have financial consequences. Johnny Loftus is an independent writer and editor living at large in Chicagoland. His work has appeared in The Village Voice, All Music Guide, Pitchfork Media, and Nicki Swift. Follow him on Twitter glennganges Tags Netflix reality tv Stream It Or Skip It The Law of the Jungle SF8 White Crow mengisahkan Juno (diperankan oleh Ahn Hee Yeon), seorang penyiar game ternama dengan 0,8 juta subscriber terjerat dalam sebuah kontroversi ketika mantan teman sekelasnya mengklaim bahwa Juno secara palsu membuat masa lalunya sendiri.ATLANTA AP â Within hours of a Supreme Court decision dismantling a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, Texas lawmakers announced plans to implement a strict voter ID law that had been blocked by a federal court. Lawmakers in Alabama said they would press forward with a similar law that had been on ruling continues to reverberate across the country a decade later, as Republican-led states pass voting restrictions that, in several cases, would have been subject to federal review had the conservative-leaning court left the provision intact. At the same time, the justices have continued to take other cases challenging elements of the landmark 1965 law that was born from the sometimes violent struggle for the right of Black Americans to cast justices are expected to rule in the coming weeks in a new case out of Alabama that could make it much more difficult for minority groups to sue over gerrymandered political maps that dilute their representation.âAt that point, you have to ask yourself whatâs left of the Voting Rights Act?â said Franita Tolson, a constitutional and election law expert and co-dean of the University of Southern California School of parts of the law have been reauthorized with bipartisan support five times since it was signed by then-President Lyndon Johnson, the most recent in 2006. But congressional efforts to address the enforcement gap created by the June 2013 Supreme Court decision on what was known as preclearance â federal review of proposed election-related changes before they could take effect â have languished amid increasingly partisan battles over the ballot box. The recent wave of voting changes have been pushed by Republican lawmakers who point to concerns over elections that have been fueled by former President Donald Trumpâs false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. At least 104 restrictive voting laws have passed in 33 mostly GOP-controlled states since the 2020 election, according to an analysis by the Voting Rights Lab, which tracks voting legislation in the where two of the major challenges to the Voting Rights Act began, considered legislation this year that would have made it a crime to help a non-family member fill out or return an absentee ballot. Supporters argued the change was needed to boost security, though ultimately the bill failed to pass as the stateâs legislature adjourned Tuesday without taking a final vote on said the proposal would have made it difficult for voters who are older, low-income, ill or who do not feel comfortable with the already cumbersome absentee ballot process, which includes a requirement to submit a copy of a photo Shinn, a 72-year-old Black woman from Mobile testified against the bill, saying it was a vehicle for suppressing votes âItâs no different from asking me how many jellybeans are in that jar or asking me to recite the Constitution from memory.âIt was such Jim Crow-era rules that the Voting Rights Act was designed to stop, relying on a formula to identify states, counties and towns with a history of imposing voting restrictions and with low voter registration or participation rates. They then were required to submit any proposed voting changes in advance, either to the Department of Justice or the federal court in Washington, law included ways for jurisdictions to exit the preclearance requirement after demonstrating specific improvements, and dozens had over the years. At the time of the 2013 decision, nine states and a few dozen counties and towns in six other states were on the list for federal review. That included a small number of counties in California and New the decade since the Supreme Court decision, which came in a case filed by Shelby County, Alabama, lawmakers in the nine states formerly covered by the preclearance requirement have passed at least 77 voting-related laws, according to an analysis by the Voting Rights Lab for The Associated improved voter access and likely would have sailed through federal review. But at least 14 laws â in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia â added new voting restrictions, the Voting Rights Lab found. These include nine, high-profile bills passed in the aftermath of the 2020 election that would have almost certainly drawn significant scrutiny from the Justice Georgia, Senate Bill 202 added ID requirements to mail voting, codified the use of ballot drop boxes in a way that reduced the number allowed in metro Atlanta â and restricted outside groups from providing water and food to voters standing in line. Republicans have said the changes were needed to boost security. Groups in the state have recalibrated their efforts to help passed two measures last year requiring voters who use state and federal voter registration forms to prove their citizenship and purging voters based on whether county election officials believe they might not be citizens or might not be qualified to could disproportionately affect Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities with cultural family names, said Alexa-Rio Osaki, political director of the Arizona Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander for Equity Coalition.âIf Shelby v. Holder didnât exist, we wouldnât have to worry about feeling as if weâre excluded yet again,â she said. âSo, weâre talking about targeting our own communities within the state just based on what our name is and whether that looks American or not.âIn North Carolina, voting rights groups are bracing for the return of the stateâs strict voter ID law, which the new GOP majority on the state Supreme Court has revived. They say the law will disproportionately affect younger voters. Several North Carolina counties, home to a handful of historically Black colleges and universities, were previously subject to federal Voting Rights Lab analysis identified three restrictive bills passed in North Carolina and two in Florida since the Shelby decision that would have been subject to federal review because they affected local governments covered by the preclearance groups such as which focuses on voter registration and education in the states, the evolving legal landscape has meant moving quickly to update website information, retrain volunteers and overhaul education material to include the latest voting rules and polling place group has filed legal challenges in Florida, Georgia and Texas over new rules for registration forms that prohibit digital signatures.âPeople donât realize or are fully aware of the rollback that has happened since the Shelby decision,â CEO Andrea Hailey said. âIt means programs like ours have to work double time, at increased expense to make sure everyone has the opportunity to vote.âWithout the preclearance process, the Justice Department and outside groups must rely on the courts to address potentially discriminatory legislation after itâs already taken effect. While remedies are built into the legal system to address harm that has been done, elections are unique, said Justin Levitt, who recently served as the White House senior policy adviser for democracy and voting rights.âIf a discriminatory election happens, you canât undo that,â said Levitt, who was a top Justice Department official during the final years of the Obama administration. âThe only way to get legal relief is to make the next election better. But in the meantime, the people who were elected in a discriminatory election are in office and making laws.âIn Texas, Republicans have enacted one of the nationâs strictest voter ID laws, limited the use of drop boxes and redrawn political district maps to fortify their dominant majority amid rapid demographic challenges to Texasâ new voting laws have persisted, but to little effect. When a federal court in 2019 ruled that Texas can continue to change district maps without supervision, it did so despite voicing âgrave concernsâ in the state where nearly 9 of every 10 new residents are years later, Democratic lawmakers staged a 93-day walkout in protest of additional voting restrictions that included changes to mail ballot rules. The changes were rushed into place before the 2022 midterm elections and resulted in nearly 23,000 ballots being rejected.âWeâve seen a drastic change in election policy,â said Texas Rep. John Bucy, a Democrat. âI think all of this stuff, if we had preclearance, would be protected. We should be working together to make sure access to the ballot box is the most important thing, and we donât do that in this state.âIn addition to Texas, the Justice Department has filed legal challenges to new voting rules enacted in Georgia and Arizona since the 2020 of such laws say the courts, even after the Shelby decision, remain an effective check to address any problematic measures.âShelby County did not alter the fact that state election rules that discriminate against protected groups like racial minorities are illegal,â said Derek Lyons, president and CEO of Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, a group co-founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove. âAnd in the few instances when courts have identified violations, they have quickly remedied them.âIn its 2013 decision, the majority on the Supreme Court found the formula was outdated for determining which jurisdictions should be covered by the preclearance requirement and pointed to increased minority participation in difficult to draw conclusions based on voter turnout data, especially since few states track it by race. Of the nine states where federal review had been required before the court ruling, all but one saw their statewide voter turnout decline for the 2022 midterm elections compared with the previous midterms four years earlier â but that also mirrored the trend nationally, according to an analysis of election and population data maintained by the of the states passing new restrictions also do have election policies that are voter-friendly, such as offering early voting and mail voting without needing an excuse.âThe Shelby opinion stands for the basic idea that if the federal government is going to take the drastic step of usurping the constitutionally endorsed power of states to govern their own elections, it must do so based on real and current data,â said Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project. âBy any objective measure, elections are free, fair, and accessible.âVoting rights groups say that does not mean voting is easy, and they have been responding to the restrictions with fresh strategies. In Georgia, for instance, Common Cause set up mobile printing stations across the state so voters could comply with new voter registration rules that require an ink signature on a printed form.âItâs only through the work of all these communities and groups on the ground that voters have access,â said Sylvia Albert, the groupâs national director of voting and elections. âBut doing this post-Shelby, courts are not recognizing the true damage those laws have had.âThe Supreme Court weakened another section of the Voting Rights Act two years ago with a ruling in a case from Arizona. It sided with the state in a challenge to new regulations that restricted who can return early ballots for another person and prohibited ballots cast in the wrong precinct from being counted. The conservative majority court could further erode voting rights that are intended to protect racial minorities in an Alabama case in which the plaintiffs argue the state diluted the power of Black Alabamaâs Republican-drawn congressional map, just one of seven districts has a majority Black population in a state where more than one in four residents is Black. A broad ruling in the case would not only uphold that map, but also make it much harder to sustain claims of racial discrimination in redistricting across the country.âIf those kind of things happen, theyâve effectively closed the door on the Voting Rights Act,â said Evan Milligan, executive director of Alabama Forward and the lead plaintiff in the reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Kim Chandler in Montgomery, Alabama; Acacia Coronado in Austin, Texas; and Aaron Kessler and Mark Sherman in Washington, contributed to this Associated Press coverage of race and voting receives support from the Jonathan Logan Family Foundation. See more about APâs democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.Acara SBS Entertainment Award 2018 telah sukses digelar pada Jumat (28/12/2018). Ajang penghargaan bergengsi ini berlangsung sekitar 140 menit dan disponsori langsung oleh Seoul Broadcasting System (SBS). Malam penganugerahan penghargaan yang diselenggarakan di SBS Prism Tower, Seoul, Korea Selatan ini dipandu oleh Park Soo Hong, Han Go Eun, dan Kim Ycx2p8S. 473 112 144 242 207 361 95 127 105