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. § 51.16

Distinction between changes in procedure and changes in substance

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

The failure of the Attorney General to interpose an objection to a procedure for instituting a change affecting voting does not exempt the substantive change from the preclearance requirement. For example, if the procedure for the approval of an annexation is changed from city council approval to approval in a referendum, the preclearance of the new procedure does not exempt an annexation accomplished under the new procedure from the preclearance requirement.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1987–1987 · leading case: Caramucci v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 263 (Ct. Cl. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Caramucci v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 263 (Ct. Cl. 1987). “” 28 C.F.R. § 51.16 (c)(1). Although plaintiff does not contend that he specifically sought such approval, he asserts that Government conduct constituted acquiescence in his choice.”
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.