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 C—Contents of Submissions

28 C.F.R. § 51.27

Required contents

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

Each submission should contain the following information or documents to enable the Attorney General to make the required determination pursuant to section 5 with respect to the submitted change affecting voting:

(a) A copy of any ordinance, enactment, order, or regulation embodying the change affecting voting for which section 5 preclearance is being requested.

(b) A copy of any ordinance, enactment, order, or regulation embodying the voting standard, practice, or procedure that is proposed to be repealed, amended, or otherwise changed.

(c) A statement that identifies with specificity each change affecting voting for which section 5 preclearance is being requested and that explains the difference between the submitted change and the prior law or practice. If the submitted change is a special referendum election and the subject of the referendum is a proposed change affecting voting, the submission should specify whether preclearance is being requested solely for the special election or for both the special election and the proposed change to be voted on in the referendum (see §§ 51.16, 51.22).

(d) The name, title, mailing address, and telephone number of the person making the submission. Where available, a telefacsimile number and an email address for the person making the submission also should be provided.

(e) The name of the submitting authority and the name of the jurisdiction responsible for the change, if different.

(f) If the submission is not from a State or county, the name of the county and State in which the submitting authority is located.

(g) Identification of the person or body responsible for making the change and the mode of decision (e.g., act of State legislature, ordinance of city council, administrative decision by registrar).

(h) A statement identifying the statutory or other authority under which the jurisdiction undertakes the change and a description of the procedures the jurisdiction was required to follow in deciding to undertake the change.

(i) The date of adoption of the change affecting voting.

(j) The date on which the change is to take effect.

(k) A statement that the change has not yet been enforced or administered, or an explanation of why such a statement cannot be made.

(l) Where the change will affect less than the entire jurisdiction, an explanation of the scope of the change.

(m) A statement of the reasons for the change.

(n) A statement of the anticipated effect of the change on members of racial or language minority groups.

(o) A statement identifying any past or pending litigation concerning the change or related voting practices.

(p) A statement that the prior practice has been precleared (with the date) or is not subject to the preclearance requirement and a statement that the procedure for the adoption of the change has been precleared (with the date) or is not subject to the preclearance requirement, or an explanation of why such statements cannot be made.

(q) For redistrictings and annexations: the items listed under § 51.28 (a)(1) and (b)(1); for annexations only: the items listed under § 51.28(c)(3).

(r) Other information that the Attorney General determines is required for an evaluation of the purpose or effect of the change. Such information may include items listed in § 51.28 and is most likely to be needed with respect to redistrictings, annexations, and other complex changes. In the interest of time such information should be furnished with the initial submission relating to voting changes of this type. When such information is required, but not provided, the Attorney General shall notify the submitting authority in the manner provided in § 51.37.

[52 FR 490, Jan. 6, 1987, as amended by Order No. 3262-2011, 76 FR 21245, Apr. 15, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1984–2013 · leading case: Dickson v. Rucho, 366 NC 332, 737 S.E.2d 362 (N.C. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dickson v. Rucho, 366 NC 332, 737 S.E.2d 362 (N.C. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 1973c (2012) (outlining the preclearance procedure); 28 C.F.R. § 51.27 (2012) (listing the “[r]equired contents” of a “submitted change affecting voting”); id.”
Ward v. Alabama, 31 F. Supp. 2d 968 (M.D. Ala. 1998). · cites it 10× “First, it argues that the redlined version of the Act, which formed part of its initial submission to the Attorney General on August 5, 1996, made all changes "readily apparent on the face of the documents provided," see 28 C.F.R. § 51.27 (c), and so the amendment to § 17-10-5…”
Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, 200 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (D.S.D. 2002). · cites it 2× “But it is not our task to decide the merits of that issue— that is for the Attorney General or the District of Columbia District Court to decide.”
Greenville Sch. v. W. Line Sch., 575 So. 2d 956 (Miss. 1991). “Attorney General, in his letter of May 1990, cites 28 C.F.R. § 51.27 (1989), which currently governs the required contents of submission.”
Diaz v. Silver, 978 F. Supp. 96 (E.D.N.Y 1997). “28 C.F.R. § 51.27 (c). Based on the submission, DOJ would assess whether the changes violate § 5 or § 2 of the VRA.”
Dupree v. Moore, 831 F. Supp. 1310 (S.D. Miss. 1993). “28 C.F.R. § 51.27 (1992). . The plaintiffs complain that the State did not advise the USAG that § 52 was the sole method for such districting.”
City of Tucson v. State, 250 P.3d 251 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “w, ordinance, or regulation affecting voting in any of its political subdivisions may be enacted or repealed, the state must either file a declaratory judgment action in United States District Court for the District of Columbia or submit a copy of the enactment to the United…”
Dupree v. Mabus, 776 F. Supp. 290 (S.D. Miss. 1991). “” 28 C.F.R. § 51.27 (1990). 6 . Section 37-6-3 was added by § 2 of the Uniform School Law.”
Fortune v. Kings Cnty. Democratic Cnty. Comm., 598 F. Supp. 761 (E.D.N.Y 1984). ““Communications” from anyone, including plaintiffs, might be received by the Attorney General in connection with a proceeding that is pending by reason of a “submission”, 28 CFR § 51.27 , but the regulations clearly distinguish such “communications” from a “submission” for…”
City of Tucson v. State of Arizona S. Arizona Leadership Council Senator Jonathan Paton (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “ordinance, or regulation affecting voting in any of its political subdivisions may be enacted or repealed, the state must either file a declaratory judgment action in United States District Court for the District of Columbia or submit a 17 copy of the enactment to the United…”
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.