C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 51—PROCEDURES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965, AS AMENDED › Subpart A—General Provisions

28 C.F.R. § 51.14

Recurrent practices

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Where a jurisdiction implements a practice or procedure periodically or upon certain established contingencies, a change occurs:

(a) The first time such a practice or procedure is implemented by the jurisdiction,

(b) When the manner in which such a practice or procedure is implemented by the jurisdiction is changed, or

(c) When the rules for determining when such a practice or procedure will be implemented are changed.

The failure of the Attorney General to object to a recurrent practice or procedure constitutes preclearance of the future use of the practice or procedure if its recurrent nature is clearly stated or described in the submission or is expressly recognized in the final response of the Attorney General on the merits of the submission.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1991–1996 · leading case: Lopez v. Monterey Cnty., 519 U.S. 9 (1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lopez v. Monterey Cnty., 519 U.S. 9 (1996). “In its response, the State included the last of the County’s six consolidation ordinances, which was adopted in 1983. The Attorney General interposed no objection to the 1983 state law.”
Dupree v. Moore, 831 F. Supp. 1310 (S.D. Miss. 1993). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. 51.14." Based on this portion of United States Attorney General's letter, the State of Mississippi says that it was confused about the preclearance of Senate Bill 2117.”
Greenville Sch. v. W. Line Sch., 575 So. 2d 956 (Miss. 1991). “28 C.F.R. 51.14. Sincerely, Wm. Bradford Reynolds Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division By: /S/ Sandra Coleman for Gerald W.”
Dupree v. Mabus, 776 F. Supp. 290 (S.D. Miss. 1991). “28 C.F.R. 51.14. The State concedes that the USAG’s letter raised doubt about whether the pre-clearance included provisions other than those 13 specifically listed in its cover memorandum.”
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.