(a) The conduct of a special election (e.g., an election to fill a vacancy; an initiative, referendum, or recall election; or a bond issue election) is subject to the preclearance requirement to the extent that the jurisdiction makes changes in the practices or procedures to be followed.
(b) Any discretionary setting of the date for a special election or scheduling of events leading up to or following a special election is subject to the preclearance requirement.
(c) A jurisdiction conducting a referendum election to ratify a change in a practice or procedure that affects voting may submit the change to be voted on at the same time that it submits any changes involved in the conduct of the referendum election. A jurisdiction wishing to receive preclearance for the change to be ratified should state clearly that such preclearance is being requested. See § 51.22 of this part.
Notes of Decisions
Lucas Et Al. v. Townsend Et Al., 486 U.S. 1301 (1988).
· cites it 2× “It also adverted to the Attorney General’s regulation providing that any discretionary setting of the date for a special election, which is defined to include a referendum, is subject to the preclearance requirement, 28 CFR §51.17 (1987), and acknowledged that the Attorney…”
Greene Cnty. Racing Comm'n v. City of Birmingham, 772 F. Supp. 1207 (N.D. Ala. 1991).
· cites it 3× “The court notes that no potential voter from Shelby County has claimed that the conduct of this referendum has the potential to discriminate against him.”
Save Our Aquifer v. City of San Antonio, 237 F. Supp. 2d 721 (W.D. Tex. 2002).
“is subject to the preclearance requirement, 28 CFR § 51.17 (1987), and acknowledged that the Attorney General had not precleared the referendum.”
Lucas v. Townsend, 686 F. Supp. 902 (M.D. Ga. 1988).
“, an election to fill a vacancy; an initiative, referendum, or recall election; or a bond issue election) is subject to the preclearance requirement to the extent that the jurisdiction makes changes in the practices or procedures to be followed.”
Armstrong v. Allain, 893 F. Supp. 1320 (S.D. Miss. 1994).
“" 28 C.F.R. § 51.17 (1990). Moreover, these regulations interpret the terms "voting qualification, prerequisite to voting, or standard or practice, or procedure with respect to voting" to include matters which "affect[] the necessity of or methods for offering issues and…”
Henderson v. Harris, 804 F. Supp. 288 (M.D. Ala. 1992).
“28 C.F.R. § 51.17 (a), (b) (1991). While the event scheduled for October 6 is not technically an “election,” but a party primary in which a candidate will be nominated to appear on the ballot in the November 3 general election, the primary winner will be the only one on the…”
Hawthorne v. Hurley, 756 F. Supp. 527 (M.D. Ala. 1990).
“at 1135-36 ; 28 C.F.R. § 51.17 (b). However, such changes are subject to pre-clearance only if they have the “potential for discrimination.”
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.