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 E—Processing of Submissions

28 C.F.R. § 51.39

Supplemental information and related submissions

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

(a)(1) Supplemental information. When a submitting authority, at its own instance, provides information during the 60-day period that the Attorney General determines materially supplements a pending submission, the 60-day period for the pending submission will be recalculated from the Attorney General's receipt of the supplemental information.

(2) Related submissions. When the Attorney General receives related submissions during the 60-day period for a submission that cannot be independently considered, the 60-day period for the first submission shall be recalculated from the Attorney General's receipt of the last related submission.

(b) The Attorney General will notify the submitting authority in writing when the 60-day period for a submission is recalculated due to the Attorney General's receipt of supplemental information or a related submission.

(c) Notice of the Attorney General's receipt of supplemental information or a related submission will be given to interested parties registered under § 51.32.

[Order No. 3262-2011, 76 FR 21247, Apr. 15, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1985–1991 · leading case: Hardy v. Wallace, 603 F. Supp. 174 (N.D. Ala. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hardy v. Wallace, 603 F. Supp. 174 (N.D. Ala. 1985). · cites it 2× “Our analysis shows that the change will have the proscribed effect because it is retrogressive with respect to minority voting strength within the constituency of the electorate which will elect the appointing authority after the change as compared to the minority strength in…”
Mexican Am. Bar Ass'n of Tex. v. State of Tex., 755 F. Supp. 735 (W.D. Tex. 1990). · cites it 3× “According to 28 C.F.R. § 51.39 , submission of “supplementary information” extends the deadline.”
Floyd Siggers v. Tunica Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 502 U.S. 933 (1991). · cites it 2× “See the Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 (28 C.F.R. 51.39)." 2 On September 3, the Justice Department denied preclearance, finding that the County had not met its burden of showing that its redistricting and electoral plan "has neither a discriminatory purpose nor…”
— 28 C.F.R. § 51.39(e) — 1 case
Hardy v. Wallace, 603 F. Supp. 174 (N.D. Ala. 1985). “Our analysis shows that the change will have the proscribed effect because it is retrogressive with respect to minority voting strength within the constituency of the electorate which will elect the appointing authority after the change as compared to the minority strength in…”
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.