(a) Consideration in general. In making a determination under section 5, the Attorney General will consider whether 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 in light of, and with particular attention being given to, the requirements of the 14th, 15th, and 24th Amendments to the Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1971(a) and (b), sections 2, 4(a), 4(f)(2), 4(f)(4), 201, 203(c), and 208 of the Act, and other constitutional and statutory provisions designed to safeguard the right to vote from denial or abridgment on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.
(b) Section 2. Preclearance under section 5 of a voting change will not preclude any legal action under section 2 by the Attorney General if implementation of the change demonstrates that such action is appropriate.
[52 FR 490, Jan. 6, 1987, as amended at 63 FR 24109, May 1, 1998; Order No. 3262-2011, 76 FR 21249, Apr. 15, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Reno v. Bossier Par. Sch. Bd., 520 U.S. 471 (1997).
· cites it 8× “Relying on 28 CFR § 51.55 (b)(2) (1996), which *476 provides that the Attorney General shall withhold preclearance where "necessary to prevent a clear violation of amended Section 2 [ 42 U.”
Shaw v. Hunt, 861 F. Supp. 408 (E.D.N.C. 1994).
· cites it 2× “at 2658-62 (in a § 2 challenge to a single-member districting plan, a showing that the plan "[creates] majority-minority districts in substantial proportion to the minority's share of votingage population" should make a court reluctant to conclude that it denies minority voters…”
Wilson v. Eu, 823 P.2d 545 (Cal. 1992).
· cites it 2× “( 28 C.F.R. § 51.55 (1991).) Thus, with respect to the four counties covered by section 5, our obligations are to avoid any worsening of the voting positions of racial or language minorities and to comply with section 2 itself.”
Bossier Par. Sch. Bd. v. Reno, 907 F. Supp. 434 (D.D.C. 1995).
· cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 51.55 (b)(2) ("In those instances in which the Attorney General concludes that, as proposed, the submitted change is free of discriminatory purpose and retrogressive effect, but also concludes that a bar to implementation of the change is necessary to prevent a…”
Burton Ex Rel. Repub. Party v. Sheheen, 793 F. Supp. 1329 (D.S.C. 1992).
“Admittedly, the Justice Department has incorporated the substantive standard of § 2 into their § 5 review procedures 28 C.F.R. § 51.55 (b)(2). Nevertheless, not only is the Justice Department conducting a review of a specifically proposed plan, but the Justice Department is…”
State of Ga. v. Reno, 881 F. Supp. 7 (D.D.C. 1995).
“31 (1982) (“In light of the amendment to section 2, it is intended that a section 5 objection also follow if a new voting procedure itself so discriminates as to violate section 2”) (Report); 28 C.F.R. § 51.55 (b)(2) (“In those instances in which the Attorney General concludes…”
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.