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 A—General Provisions

28 C.F.R. § 51.6

Political subunits

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

All political subunits within a covered jurisdiction (e.g., counties, cities, school districts) that have not terminated coverage by obtaining the declaratory judgment described in section 4(a) of the Act are subject to the requirements of section 5.

[Order No. 3262-2011, 76 FR 21243, Apr. 15, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1997–2011 · leading case: United States v. State of La., 952 F. Supp. 1151 (W.D. La. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. State of La., 952 F. Supp. 1151 (W.D. La. 1997). · cites it 4× “(1996); see also 28 C.F.R. § 51.6 (including cities within the definition of "political subunit[s]" subject to § 5's preclearance requirements), and that the 300-plus annexations to the City are "changes" that come within the scope of § 5, see, e.”
LaRoque v. Holder, 755 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D.D.C. 2010). “7, 1965) (Section 5 coverage determination for Lenoir County, North Carolina); 28 C.F.R. § 51.6 (noting that “all political subunits within a covered jurisdiction .”
Laroque v. Holder, 831 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D.D.C. 2011). “7, 1965) (Section 5 coverage determination for Lenoir County, North Carolina); 28 C.F.R. § 51.6 (noting that “all political subunits within a covered jurisdiction .”
United States v. Louisiana, 952 F. Supp. 1151 (W.D. La. 1997). · cites it 4× “(1996); see also 28 C.F.R. § 51.6 (including cities within the definition of “political subunit[s]” subject to § 5’s preclearance requirements), and that the 300-plus annexations to the City are “changes” that come within the scope of § 5, see, e.”
Laroque v. Holder (D.D.C. 2010). “7, 1965) (Section 5 coverage determination for Lenoir County, North Carolina); 28 C.F.R. § 51.6 (noting that "all political subunits within a covered jurisdiction .”
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.