28 C.F.R. § 51.4
Date used to determine coverage; list of covered jurisdictions
(a) The requirement of section 5 takes effect upon publication in the
(b) Section 5 requires the preclearance of changes affecting voting made since the date used for the determination of coverage. For each covered jurisdiction that date is one of the following: November 1, 1964; November 1, 1968; or November 1, 1972.
(c) The appendix to this part contains a list of covered jurisdictions, together with the applicable date used to determine coverage and the
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1975–2003 · leading case: Stephenson v. Bartlett
Stephenson v. Bartlett (2002)
“§ 1973c; 28 C.F.R. § 51.4 (c) & app. to pt. 51, at 96-98 (2001); Shaw v.”
Dougherty County Bd. of Ed. v. White (1978)
“28 CFR § 51.4 (a) (1977). More particularly, the regulations require preclearance of "[a]ny alteration affecting the eligibility of persons to become or remain candidates or obtain a position on the ballot in primary or general elections or to become or remain office-holders.”
Baines v. Masiello (2003)
“As noted by the Supreme Court, Section 5 is limited both in its substantive goal (“to insure that no voting procedure changes would be made that would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral…”
LaRouche, Lyndon H. v. Fowler, Donald L. (1998)
“The states and political subdivisions so identified are the “covered jurisdictions” of the Act, 28 C.F.R. § 51.4 (c), and are listed in the Justice Department’s regulations.”
NAACP, DeKalb County Chapter v. Georgia (1980)
“If defendant’s reading were correct, a covered state or subdivision thereof could amend its laws concerning voting and receive the Attorney General’s approval, then change its laws back to the way they were before, avoiding federal preclearance on the ground that the voting laws…”
Mixon v. Ohio (1999)
“See 28 C.F.R. § 51.4 . . At issue in Searcy was a system in which every year one board member would retire and that retiring member, with the remaining board members, would elect a new board member.”
White v. Dougherty County Board of Education (1984)
“28 CFR § 51.4 (a) (1977). More particularly, the regulations require preclearance of “[a]ny alteration affecting the eligibility of persons to become or remain candidates or obtain a position on the ballot in primary or general elections or to become or remain officeholders.”
State of Ga. v. Reno (1995)
“9897 (1965); 28 C.F.R. § 51.4 ; id. pt. 51, app.; Brooks v.”
Brooks v. Georgia State Board of Elections (1993)
“While that submission was pending before the Attorney General, on July 13,1988, Tyrone Brooks and other black registered voters in Georgia (“Brooks”) brought a class action challenging Georgia’s method of electing judges to its superior courts, which are the courts of general…”
Moore v. School Reform Bd. of City of Detroit (2000)
“Section 5 applies only to states with a record of voting discrimination, and it requires preclearance of proposed changes in election procedures that affect voting rights.”
Connors v. Bennett (2002)
“§ 1973b(b); 28 C.F.R. § 51.4 app. (2002). [7] "The State may preclear a voting change in one of two ways: it may obtain a declaratory judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, or it may submit the change to the Attorney General of the United…”
Huffman v. Bullock County (1981)
“at 372 (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 51.4 (a) (1977)) (emphasis added).”
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.