28 C.F.R. § 51.10
Requirement of action for declaratory judgment or submission to the Attorney General
Section 5 requires that, prior to enforcement of any change affecting voting, the jurisdiction that has enacted or seeks to administer the change must either:
(a) Obtain a judicial determination from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the voting change 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.
(b) Make to the Attorney General a proper submission of the change to which no objection is interposed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases, 1973–2010 · leading case: City of Rome v. United States
City of Rome v. United States (1980)
“" [6] We also reject the appellants' argument that the majority vote, runoff election, and numbered posts provisions of the city's charter have already been precleared by the Attorney General because in 1968 the State of Georgia submitted, and the Attorney General precleared, a…”
United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey (1977)
“" 28 CFR § 51.10 (b) (6) (ii) (1976). [24] We also note that the white voter who as a result of the 1974 plan is in a district more likely to return a nonwhite representative will be represented, to the extent that voting continues to follow racial lines, by legislators elected…”
Garcia v. Uvalde County (1978)
“28 C.F.R. § 51.10 (a)(1)-(5). However, the regulations also require a submission to include "other information which the Attorney General determines is required to enable him to evaluate the purpose or effect of the change.”
Georgia v. United States (1973)
“" The promulgated regulations define in 28 CFR § 51.10 the contents of a submission.”
City of Monroe v. United States (1997)
“Both the relevant regulation, 28 CFR § 51.10 (1979), and the decisions of this Court require that the jurisdiction `in some unambiguous and recordable manner submit any legislation or regulation in question directly to the Attorney General with a request for his consideration…”
Harrison County v. City of Gulfport (1990)
“On March 31, 1989, the Attorney General entered an objection letter refusing to preclear repeal of Section 37-7-611.”
McCain v. Lybrand (1984)
“Another subsection strongly urges that, in addition to required information about the “specific change submitted for consideration,” the submitting authority include a copy of “any other changes in law or administration relating to the subject matter of the submitted change…”
Blanding v. DuBose (1982)
“[7] Before the District Court, there was a dispute whether the June letter was accompanied by a multipage document supplying, inter alia, the information required by 28 CFR § 51.10 (1980), or whether that document was first presented to the Department of Justice at the July 23…”
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2005)
“§ 1973c; see also 28 C.F.R. § 51.10 . 4 . The other Plaintiffs are Pima County Supervisor Ramon Valdez, State Senator Peter Rios, State Representative Steve Gallardo, Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Gar-rido Wilcox, Carlos Avelar, James Sedillo, Esther Lumm, Virginia…”
Finley v. Patterson (1997)
“95-648, and the attorney general of Alabama will not submit this law for preclearance.”
Reform Party of Alabama v. Bennett (1998)
“28 C.F.R. § 51.10 requires "[a]ny change affecting the eligibility of persons to become or remain candidates, to obtain a position on the ballot in primary or general elections .”
LaRoque v. Holder (2010)
“See 28 C.F.R. § 51.10 (stating that “[i]t is unlawful to enforce a change affecting voting without obtaining preclearance under section 5”).”
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.