(a) Surrogate for the court. Section 5 provides for submission of a voting change to the Attorney General as an alternative to the seeking of a declaratory judgment from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Therefore, the Attorney General shall make the same determination that would be made by the court in an action for a declaratory judgment under section 5: whether the submitted change neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. The burden of proof is on a submitting authority when it submits a change to the Attorney General for preclearance, as it would be if the proposed change were the subject of a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 328, 335 (1966).
(b) No objection. If the Attorney General determines that the submitted change neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, no objection shall be interposed to the change.
(c) Objection. An objection shall be interposed to a submitted change if the Attorney General is unable to determine that the change neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. This includes those situations where the evidence as to the purpose or effect of the change is conflicting and the Attorney General is unable to determine that the change is free of both the prohibited discriminatory purpose and effect.
[Order No. 3262-2011, 76 FR 21248, Apr. 15, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases, 1992–2014 · leading case:
Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254 (2003).
Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254 (2003).
· cites it 2× “; 28 CFR § 51.52 (c) (2002). In DOJ's view, however, incomplete state submissions do not start the 60-day clock for review.”
Reno v. Bossier Par. Sch. Bd., 520 U.S. 471 (1997).
· cites it 2× “Appellants lastly argue that preclearance is an equitable remedy, obtained through a declaratory judgment action in district court, see 42 U.”
Reno v. Bossier Par. Sch. Bd., 528 U.S. 320 (2000).
· cites it 2× “, at 478 (judicial preclearance); 28 CFR § 51.52 (a) (1999) (administrative preclearance).”
Johnson v. Miller, 864 F. Supp. 1354 (S.D. Ga. 1994).
· cites it 3× “28 C.F.R. § 51.52 . In making its determination, DOJ is required to consider the following “important background information”: (1) The extent to which minorities have been denied an equal opportunity to participate meaningfully in the political process in the jurisdiction.”
Lopez v. Monterey Cnty., 525 U.S. 266 (1999).
· cites it 2× “See 28 CFR § 51.52 (a) (1997). Recognizing that Congress has the constitutional authority to designate covered jurisdictions and to guard against changes that give rise to a discriminatory effect in those jurisdictions, we find no merit in the claim that Congress lacks Fifteenth…”
LaRoque v. Holder, 650 F.3d 777 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
“Id; see also 28 C.F.R. § 51.52 (a). If the Attorney General fails to object within sixty days, section 5’s preemptive effect ends, and the jurisdiction may implement the change.”
LaRouche, Lyndon H. v. Fowler, Donald L., 152 F.3d 974 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
“The standard for preclearance by a district court is a showing that the qualification or prerequisite "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.”
State of Texas v. Holder, 888 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2012).
“First, without responding to Texas’s concerns about the reliability of its no-match list, the Attorney General concluded that Texas’s data showed that “Hispanic registered voters are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic registered voters to lack” a DPS-issued driver’s…”
Baker v. Pataki, 85 F.3d 919 (2d Cir. 1996).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 51.52 . The Act also authorizes the Attorney General, either (1) upon the written complaint of twenty or more resident citizens that they have been denied the right to vote under color of law on account of race or color, or (2) upon finding it necessary to…”
State of Texas v. Holder, 63 F. Supp. 3d 54 (D.D.C. 2014).
“In his decision, the Attorney General concluded that the data submitted by Texas showed that registered Hispanic voters were more than twice as likely as registered non-Hispanic voters to lack an approved form of photo identification.”
Lake v. State Bd. of Elections of North Carolina, 798 F. Supp. 1199 (M.D.N.C. 1992).
“§ 1973c; see 28 C.F.R. § 51.52 . When North Carolina General Statute § 163-2 was precleared, the Attorney General determined that extending polling hours from 7:30 p.”
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.