Alissa Brink
Maverick v. San Antonio( 1963)
The amendment was challenged do to the fact that Mr.Maverick the mayor was giving out money for peiople to vote who couldn't vote do to the poll taxes.
The final decision in the case was that the mayor would be removed from his position and do time in jail. He would never be placed in any type of office or have a position as such again.
The impact that it had on the country was that the town of San Antonio was being bribed and in a way told who to vote for.

Tyler M.
Gibbons v.s. Ogden [1824]
The problem started when Ogden/n.y. issued an injunction aginst Gibbons , prohibiting his steamboat between n.y. and n.j..
The result was that Gibbons had a license for his boat and for delivering his items so he was able to go back and finish his job.
This had an impact on the country because wt it did was delayed the peoples goods that Gibbons had to deliver for a long period of time.

1. Stephen Epstein
2. Harper v. Virginia Board (1966)
3. The state of Virginia taxed Harper during a poll because she was a wealthy woman. This was wrong because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
4. The result was that Mrs. Harper didn't have to pay the fee.
5. This impacted the country because it states that even if you are wealthy you don't have to pay any extra for a vote.

alex c. is doing Harman v. Forssenius

1.Grace Grieco
2. Miller v. Johnson (1995)
3. The 24th amendment was applied to this case because it was relating to the "voting act" and the 24th amendment is on voting also.
4. Georgia wanted to submit changes to there election districts and before any state changes a district they have to get permission from the "Department of Justice". They sent in two separate submissions and the DOJ turned both down. The third time they sent a submission in they got it approved. After the 1992 election there were several black candidates elected for congress and five white voters brought a suits against the state because they thought the redistricting was unconstitutional
. The district court decided that the redistricting was unconstitutional.
5. It meant that the redistricting was not fair to all the voters of Georgia. This incident made sure that the DOJ looked at the redistricting for other states more carefully before giving permission.

Kate the Awsome is doing:Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937

1.Alex cervino
2.HARMAN v. FORSSENIUS, 380 U.S. 528 (1965)
3.Virginia had attempted to dodge this anti-poll tax constitutional amendment by allowing for the poll tax to be waived if the would-be voter filed a certificate of residency six months prior to the election.
4.This decision essentially was the death knell for the poll tax in Virginia.