(a) When a submitting authority is required under State law or local ordinance or otherwise finds it necessary to implement a change within the 60-day period following submission, it may request that the submission be given expedited consideration. The submission should explain why such consideration is needed and provide the date by which a determination is required.
(b) Jurisdictions should endeavor to plan for changes in advance so that expedited consideration will not be required and should not routinely request such consideration. When a submitting authority demonstrates good cause for expedited consideration the Attorney General will attempt to make a decision by the date requested. However, the Attorney General cannot guarantee that such consideration can be given.
(c) Notice of the request for expedited consideration will be given to interested parties registered under § 51.32.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1989–2014 · leading case:
Larios v. Cox, 305 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (N.D. Ga. 2004).
Larios v. Cox, 305 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (N.D. Ga. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Allowing time for the political process, plans can be presented to this court well before the stated deadline of March 1, 2004.”
Hawthorne v. Baker, 750 F. Supp. 1090 (M.D. Ala. 1990).
· cites it 2× “It was submitted to the Attorney General in March, 1990, with a request for expedited consideration pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 51.34 (a). Even without expedited consideration, the March, 1990 filing was long enough before the June, 1990 election to allow the Attorney General the…”
Brooks v. State Bd. of Elections, 775 F. Supp. 1470 (S.D. Ga. 1989).
“Hampton County , defendants have 30 days in which to complete their submission to the Attorney General, and they may of course request expedited consideration under 28 C.F.R. § 51.34 . The defendants may not comply piecemeal and seek to stretch out the preclearance process.”
State of Texas v. Holder, 63 F. Supp. 3d 54 (D.D.C. 2014).
“25, 2011 McGeehan Letter at 1 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 51.34 ). The Attorney General did not accede to this timeline.”
Florida v. United States, 820 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2011).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 51.34 (b) (“When a submitting authority demonstrates good cause for expedited consideration the Attorney General will attempt to make a decision by the date requested.”
Tisdale v. Sheheen, 777 F. Supp. 1270 (D.S.C. 1991).
“While we may not consider whether this rule has been applied in a discriminatory manner in deciding whether preclearance is required, this factor is significant in fashioning an appropriate remedy. We conclude that the circumstances surrounding the adoption and implementation of…”
Lopez v. Merced Cnty., Cal., 473 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (E.D. Cal. 2007).
“The County of Merced requested on behalf of all the cities that the Department of Justice expedite review of the annexations pursuant to regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 51.34 , and on November 2, 2006, was assured by the responsible Department of Justice personnel that the Department…”
Luper v. Mun. of Anchorage, 268 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (D. Alaska 2003).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 51.34 . Luper, along with fellow Anchorage citizen Rinna Merculieff (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed their first amended complaint on April 14, 2003.”
State of Florida v. United States of Am. (D.D.C. 2011).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 51.34 (b) (“When a submitting authority demonstrates good cause for expedited consideration the Attorney General will attempt to make a decision by the date requested.”
Florida v. United States, 820 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2011).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 51.34 (b) ("When a submitting authority demonstrates good cause for expedited consideration the Attorney General will attempt to make a decision by the date requested.”
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.