Except as provided in § 51.18 (Federal court-ordered changes), the section 5 requirement applies to any change affecting voting, even though it appears to be minor or indirect, returns to a prior practice or procedure, seemingly expands voting rights, or is designed to remove the elements that caused the Attorney General to object to a prior submitted change. The scope of section 5 coverage is based on whether the generic category of changes affecting voting to which the change belongs (for example, the generic categories of changes listed in § 51.13) has the potential for discrimination. NAACP v. Hampton County Election Commission, 470 U.S. 166 (1985). The method by which a jurisdiction enacts or administers a change does not affect the requirement to comply with section 5, which applies to changes enacted or administered through the executive, legislative, or judicial branches.
[Order No. 3262-2011, 76 FR 21244, Apr. 15, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1989–2012 · leading case:
Riley v. Kennedy, 553 U.S. 406 (2008).
Riley v. Kennedy, 553 U.S. 406 (2008).
· cites it 2× “See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16-18 (collecting cases); 28 CFR § 51.12 (2007). Furthermore, Congress has reauthorized the VRA in the face of this understanding without amending the relevant language of § 5.”
Brooks v. State Bd. of Elections, 775 F. Supp. 1470 (S.D. Ga. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Any change affecting voting, even though it appears to be minor or indirect, returns to a prior practice or procedure, ostensibly expands voting rights, or is designed to remove the elements that caused objection by the Attorney General to a prior submitted change, must meet the…”
Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273 (1997).
“See also 28 CFR §51.12 (1996) (requiring preclearance of “[a]ny change affecting voting, even though it appears to be minor or indirect .”
Hawthorne v. Baker, 750 F. Supp. 1090 (M.D. Ala. 1990).
· cites it 2× “As noted, some of these 28 committees have provisions in their new plans for the appointment of additional members, both black and white.”
Dupree v. Mabus, 776 F. Supp. 290 (S.D. Miss. 1991).
· cites it 2× “11 (1986) (currently codified at 28 C.F.R. § 51.12 (1990)). The statutes in issue, at the very least, indirectly affect political subdivision boundaries.”
Barnett v. Bailey, 956 F.2d 1036 (11th Cir. 1992).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 51.12 (emphasis added). *1043 We do not, however, in this case reach the issue of whether Supreme Court precedent clearly requires allegation of potential discriminatory effect.”
Smith v. State of South Carolina Election Comm'n, 874 F. Supp. 2d 483 (D.S.C. 2012).
“28 C.F.R. § 51.12 . The regulations also list examples of changes affecting voting, which include “[a]ny change concerning registration, balloting, and the counting of votes.”
Tisdale v. Sheheen, 777 F. Supp. 1270 (D.S.C. 1991).
“28 C.F.R. § 51.12 (1990). Congress did broadly define the term “voting” as including all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election, including, but not limited to, registration, listing pursuant to this sub-chapter, or other action…”
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.