(a) Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973c, prohibits the enforcement in any jurisdiction covered by section 4(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973b(b), of any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on the date used to determine coverage, until either:
(1) A declaratory judgment is obtained from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, or
(2) It has been submitted to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has interposed no objection within a 60-day period following submission.
(b) In order to make clear the responsibilities of the Attorney General under section 5 and the interpretation of the Attorney General of the responsibility imposed on others under this section, the procedures in this part have been established to govern the administration of section 5.
[52 FR 490, Jan. 6, 1987, as amended by Order No. 3262-2011, 76 FR 21243, Apr. 15, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Molinari v. Bloomberg, 564 F.3d 587 (2d Cir. 2009).
“§ 1973c; 28 C.F.R. § 51.1 et seq. On March 17, 2009, the DOJ issued its pre-clearance letter, stating that it "does not interpose any objection to the specified changes [in Local Law 51,]" but its failure to object "does not bar subsequent litigation to enjoin the enforcement of…”
Smith v. Clark, 189 F. Supp. 2d 529 (S.D. Miss. 2002).
“" 28 C.F.R. § 51.1 (2). The initial 60-day period was to have expired on February 25.”
Greenville Sch. v. W. Line Sch., 575 So. 2d 956 (Miss. 1991).
“The regulations controlling submissions in effect in *963 1986, when the State of Mississippi submitted Senate Bill 2117, 28 C.F.R. §§ 51.1 through 51.54, did not require the inclusion, by the covered jurisdiction, of a copy of the prior law being amended or repealed.”
Thompson v. Attorney Gen., 129 F. Supp. 3d 430 (S.D. Miss. 2015).
“2 Under the reasoning of this opinion, § 9-19-17 cannot be enforced.”
Harding v. Cnty. of Dall., 336 F. Supp. 3d 677 (N.D. Tex. 2018).
“§ 1973c & 28 C.F.R. § 51.1 et seq. (1989) ). At the time the 2011 Map was submitted for preclearance, the Supreme Court had not decided Shelby County, Alabama v.”
Lucas v. Townsend, 714 F. Supp. 525 (M.D. Ga. 1989).
“Neither the statutes (sections 1973 and 1973c) nor the regulations promulgated pursuant to section 1973c, see 28 C.F.R. §§ 51.1 , et seq., defines a standard, practice, or procedure as those terms are employed in section 1973.”
Dotson v. City of Indianola, Miss., 521 F. Supp. 934 (N.D. Miss. 1981).
“Although Pottinger requested him to supply the information required by 28 CFR § 51.1 et seq., Crosthwait merely cited the location of the minute entries in the state court records and noted that he would “obtain the voting changes, if any, for [Pottinger’s] review.”
Mexican Am. Bar Ass'n of Tex. v. State of Tex., 755 F. Supp. 735 (W.D. Tex. 1990).
“28 C.F.R. § 51.1 (a)(2) (1990). During the sixty-day period, the Attorney General may, by letter, request “any omitted information considered necessary for the evaluation of the submission.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.