28 C.F.R. § 51.15

Enabling legislation and contingent or nonuniform requirements

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

(a) With respect to legislation (1) that enables or permits the State or its political subunits to institute a voting change or (2) that requires or enables the State or its political sub-units to institute a voting change upon some future event or if they satisfy certain criteria, the failure of the Attorney General to interpose an objection does not exempt from the preclearance requirement the implementation of the particular voting change that is enabled, permitted, or required, unless that implementation is explicitly included and described in the submission of such parent legislation.

(b) For example, such legislation includes—

(1) Legislation authorizing counties, cities, school districts, or agencies or officials of the State to institute any of the changes described in § 51.13,

(2) Legislation requiring a political subunit that chooses a certain form of government to follow specified election procedures,

(3) Legislation requiring or authorizing political subunits of a certain size or a certain location to institute specified changes,

(4) Legislation requiring a political subunit to follow certain practices or procedures unless the subunit's charter or ordinances specify to the contrary.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1992–1997 · leading case: Lopez v. Monterey Cnty., 519 U.S. 9 (1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lopez v. Monterey Cnty., 519 U.S. 9 (1996). “14 (2) (1981); 28 CFR § 51.15 (a) (1987). The United States points out, however, that the 1983 submission to the Department of Justice did not identify or describe any of the County’s previous consolidation ordinances.”

Terrazas v. Slagle, 821 F. Supp. 1154 (W.D. Tex. 1992). “This provision now appears at 28 C.F.R. § 51.15 (a) (1991). 12 . Obviously, it did not refer to S.”

United States v. State of La., 952 F. Supp. 1151 (W.D. La. 1997). · cites it 3× “, 28 C.F.R. § 51.15 (a), (b)(1) (1996). [20] If this *1169 were not so, many annexations would not have to be precleared because they are effectuated pursuant to pre-Voting Rights Act enabling statutes like § 1952, a result inconsistent with the purpose of § 5.”

United States v. Louisiana, 952 F. Supp. 1151 (W.D. La. 1997). · cites it 3× “, 28 C.F.R. § 51.15 (a), (b)(1) (1996). 20 If this *1169 were not so, many annexations would not have to be precleared because they are effectuated pursuant to pre-Voting Rights Act enabling statutes like § 1952, a result inconsistent with the purpose of § 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.