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. § 51.19

Request for notification concerning voting litigation

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

A jurisdiction subject to the preclearance requirements of section 5 that becomes involved in any litigation concerning voting is requested to notify the Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, at the addresses, telefacsimile number, or email address specified in § 51.24. Such notification will not be considered a submission under section 5.

[Order No. 3262-2011, 76 FR 21244, Apr. 15, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1973–1998 · leading case: United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144 (1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144 (1977). · cites it 4× “See 28 CFR § 51.19 (1976). This initial right of review, coupled with the factfinding competence of the Justice Department, substantially reduces the likelihood that a complicated reapportionment plan that silently furthers malign racial policies would escape detection by…”
Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973). · cites it 4× “The regulation states that the burden of proof is on the submitting party, and *537 that the Attorney General will refrain from objecting only if his review of the material submitted satisfies him that the proposed change does not have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect.”
Morris v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491 (1977). · cites it 2× “28 CFR § 51.19 (1976). [5] Moreover, the regulation also specifies the actions the Attorney General must take: "If the Attorney General is satisfied that the submitted change does not have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect, he will not object to the change and will so…”
Seamon v. Upham, 536 F. Supp. 931 (E.D. Tex. 1982). · cites it 2× “Put another way, if the appropriate parties are satisfied that the apportionment plan does not have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect, the plan will be enforceable as law.”
John Roy Harper, II v. Edward H. Levi, Attorney Gen. of the United States, (Two Cases), 520 F.2d 53 (D.C. Cir. 1975). · cites it 3× “If the Attorney General determines that the submitted change has a racially discriminatory purpose or effect, he will enter an objection and will so notify the submitting authority.”
Wilkinson v. Legal Servs. Corp., 27 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 1998). “, dissenting) (demonstrating that Attorney General’s failure to object violated 28 C.F.R. § 51.19 (1976) and arguing that such violation provided an independent basis for judicial review).”
Harper v. Kleindienst, 362 F. Supp. 742 (D.D.C. 1973). “28 C.F.R. § 51.19 . Thus, the above regulations impose on the Attorney General the same duty as that imposed on a three-judge District of Columbia court.”
United States v. Cohan, 358 F. Supp. 1217 (S.D. Ga. 1973). “See 28 C.F.R. § 51.19 . 5 . Three Justices dissented to this holding.”
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.