Section 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
E308312
Section 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a provision that was challenged but ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in South Carolina v. Katzenbach as a valid exercise of Congress’s power to enforce voting rights protections.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Section 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T2618642 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Section 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 Context triple: [South Carolina v. Katzenbach, upheldProvision, Section 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965]
-
A.
Section 9 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Section 9 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a provision that established federal oversight mechanisms for certain jurisdictions’ voting changes, forming part of the Act’s broader framework to prevent racial discrimination in voting.
-
B.
Section 6 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Section 6 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a key enforcement provision that authorizes the appointment of federal examiners to oversee voter registration and protect voting rights in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination.
-
C.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is a key provision that required certain jurisdictions with histories of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal approval, or “preclearance,” before changing their voting laws or practices.
-
D.
Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a “bail-in” provision that allows federal courts to place jurisdictions with proven intentional voting discrimination under preclearance requirements for changes to their election laws.
-
E.
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was the provision that established the coverage formula determining which jurisdictions were subject to federal preclearance requirements for changes to their voting laws.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Section 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 Target entity description: Section 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a provision that was challenged but ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in South Carolina v. Katzenbach as a valid exercise of Congress’s power to enforce voting rights protections.
-
A.
Section 9 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Section 9 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a provision that established federal oversight mechanisms for certain jurisdictions’ voting changes, forming part of the Act’s broader framework to prevent racial discrimination in voting.
-
B.
Section 6 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Section 6 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a key enforcement provision that authorizes the appointment of federal examiners to oversee voter registration and protect voting rights in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination.
-
C.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is a key provision that required certain jurisdictions with histories of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal approval, or “preclearance,” before changing their voting laws or practices.
-
D.
Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a “bail-in” provision that allows federal courts to place jurisdictions with proven intentional voting discrimination under preclearance requirements for changes to their election laws.
-
E.
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was the provision that established the coverage formula determining which jurisdictions were subject to federal preclearance requirements for changes to their voting laws.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (31)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf | statutory provision ⓘ |
| appliesTo |
political subdivisions
ⓘ
states ⓘ |
| associatedWith |
enforcement mechanisms for voting rights
ⓘ
federal oversight of voting practices ⓘ |
| challengedBy |
South Carolina
ⓘ
surface form:
State of South Carolina
|
| constitutionalBasis |
Article I of the United States Constitution
ⓘ
surface form:
Article I powers of the United States Congress
Fifteenth Amendment Enforcement Clause ⓘ
surface form:
Enforcement Clause of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
|
| country | United States of America ⓘ |
| decisionYearOfKeyChallenge | 1966 ⓘ |
| enactedBy | United States Congress ⓘ |
| enactmentDate | 1965-08-06 ⓘ |
| hasLegalEffect | authorizes federal action to address voting discrimination ⓘ |
| heldToBe |
constitutional
ⓘ
valid exercise of congressional power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment ⓘ |
| interpretedBy | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| isComponentOf | federal statutory scheme to eliminate racial discrimination in voting ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | United States federal law ⓘ |
| legalDomain |
election law
ⓘ
voting rights ⓘ |
| partOf | Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ |
| purpose |
to enforce the guarantees of the Fifteenth Amendment
ⓘ
to strengthen federal enforcement of voting rights protections ⓘ |
| relatedCase | South Carolina v. Katzenbach ⓘ |
| relatedTo |
federal authority over state election laws
ⓘ
remedial legislation under the Fifteenth Amendment ⓘ |
| signedIntoLawBy | Lyndon B. Johnson ⓘ |
| statuteCitation |
Voting Rights Act of 1965
ⓘ
surface form:
Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. 89-110
|
| upheldByCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| wasChallengedIn | South Carolina v. Katzenbach ⓘ |
| wasUpheldIn | South Carolina v. Katzenbach ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Section 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 Description of subject: Section 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a provision that was challenged but ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in South Carolina v. Katzenbach as a valid exercise of Congress’s power to enforce voting rights protections.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.