(a) The source of any information contained in a submission should be identified.
(b) Where an estimate is provided in lieu of more reliable statistics, the submission should identify the name, position, and qualifications of the person responsible for the estimate and should briefly describe the basis for the estimate.
(c) Submissions should be no longer than is necessary for the presentation of the appropriate information and materials.
(d) The Attorney General will not accept for review any submission that fails to describe the subject change in sufficient particularity to satisfy the minimum requirements of § 51.27(c).
(e) A submitting authority that desires the Attorney General to consider any information supplied as part of an earlier submission may incorporate such information by reference by stating the date and subject matter of the earlier submission and identifying the relevant information.
(f) Where information requested by this subpart is relevant but not known or available, or is not applicable, the submission should so state.
(g) The following Office of Management and Budget control number under the Paperwork Reduction Act applies to the collection of information requirements contained in these Procedures: OMB No. 1190-0001 (expires February 28, 1994). See 5 CFR 1320.13.
[52 FR 490, Jan. 6, 1987, as amended by Order No. 1284-88, 53 FR 25327, July 6, 1988; Order No. 1498-91, 56 FR 26032, June 6, 1991]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1991–1997 · leading case:
Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273 (1997).
Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273 (1997).
“See also 28 CFR §§ 51.26 (d), 51.27(c) (1996) (requiring preclearance submissions to explain changes clearly and in detail).”
City of Monroe v. United States, 522 U.S. 34 (1997).
· cites it 2× “236, 257 (1984) (same); 28 CFR §§ 51.26 (d), 51.27(c) (1997) (requiring preclearance submissions to explain changes clearly and in detail).”
Greenville Sch. v. W. Line Sch., 575 So. 2d 956 (Miss. 1991).
“§ 37-7-611 , as illustrated in the following statement: Both the prior submission of the Uniform School Law and the prior submission of the 1978 act identified specific voting changes adopted by those statutes, but neither submission contained any reference to the voting changes…”
Arizonans for Fair Representation v. Symington, 828 F. Supp. 684 (D. Ariz. 1992).
“18 is expressly conditioned upon each county filing an affidavit with this court certifying it submitted precinct boundary changes to the Department of Justice, pursuant to the relevant parts of 28 C.F.R. sections 51.26 through 51.28. The precinct and polling place changes still…”
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.