28 C.F.R. § 51.11
Right to bring suit
Submission to the Attorney General does not affect the right of the submitting authority to bring an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that the change affecting voting 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1985–2011 · leading case: Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Hampton Cnty. Election Comm'n, 470 U.S. 166 (1985).
Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Hampton Cnty. Election Comm'n, 470 U.S. 166 (1985). “” 28 CFR §51.11 (1984). Among the specific examples of changes listed in the regulations is “[a]ny change affecting the eligibility of persons to become or remain candidates.”
Shelby Cnty. Ala. v. Holder, 811 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D.D.C. 2011). “However, if the jurisdiction does not receive federal preclearance from either the Attorney General or a three-judge panel of this Court, the change to its voting practice or procedure may not be implemented.”
Phillip Maloney v. City of Marietta, 822 F.2d 1023 (11th Cir. 1987). “Moreover, the particular statute vindicated in this case is comprehensive in scope and broadly applicable in the jurisdictions subject to its requirements. In fact, section 5 has been interpreted as requiring the preclearance of “[a]ny change affecting voting, even though it…”
Dupree v. Mabus, 776 F. Supp. 290 (S.D. Miss. 1991). “28 C.F.R. § 51.11 (1986) (currently codified at 28 C.”
LaRoque v. Holder, 755 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D.D.C. 2010). “”); 28 C.F.R. § 51.11 (noting that “[s]ubmission to the Attorney General does not affect the right of the submitting authority to bring an action in the U.”
Terrazas v. Slagle, 821 F. Supp. 1154 (W.D. Tex. 1992). “’ 28 CFR § 51.11 (1984). Among the specific examples of changes listed in the regulations is ‘[a]ny change affecting the eligibility of persons to become or remain candidates.”
Laroque v. Holder (D.D.C. 2010). “District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment").”
Shelby Cnty., Alabama v. Holder (D.D.C. 2011). “District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment"). However, if the jurisdiction does not receive federal preclearance from either the Attorney General or a three-judge panel of this Court, the change to its voting practice or procedure may not be…”
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.