28 C.F.R. § 51.7
Political parties
Certain activities of political parties are subject to the preclearance requirement of section 5. A change affecting voting effected by a political party is subject to the preclearance requirement:
(a) If the change relates to a public electoral function of the party and
(b) If the party is acting under authority explicitly or implicitly granted by a covered jurisdiction or political subunit subject to the preclearance requirement of section 5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1976–2009 · leading case: Morse v. Repub. Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186 (1996).
Morse v. Repub. Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186 (1996). “28 CFR § 51.7 (1995). It is uncontested that Virginia has sole authority to set the qualifications for ballot access.”
United States v. Sheffield Bd. of Comm'rs, 435 U.S. 110 (1978). “See 28 CFR § 51.7 (1976). [27] And there is no question but that the Attorney General did not intend to approve the proposed change to a mayor-council government and could not be understood as having done so.”
LULAC OF TEXAS v. Texas Democratic Party, 651 F. Supp. 2d 700 (W.D. Tex. 2009). “The Attorney General regulation in question, 28 C.F.R. § 51.7 , provides, Certain activities of political parties are subject to the preclearance requirement of section 5.”
LaRouche, Lyndon H. v. Fowler, Donald L., 152 F.3d 974 (D.C. Cir. 1998). “at 1193 (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 51.7 ). Justice Stevens found Virginia to have made such a delegation because, under the state’s Electoral Code, “the nominees of the two major political parties shall automatically appear on the general election ballot,” in contrast to independent…”
Hawthorne v. Baker, 750 F. Supp. 1090 (M.D. Ala. 1990). “" 28 C.F.R. § 51.7 . In fact, pursuant to this regulation, the Attorney General approved the state committee's plan in 1983 and objected to a revised version in 1989, expressly noting in his objections that "the selection of officers and members of the [State Democratic…”
Cnty. Council of Sumter Cnty. v. United States, 555 F. Supp. 694 (D.D.C. 1983). “See 28 C.F.R. § 51.7 (1975); cf. 28 C.F.R. § 51.”
Mississippi State Democratic Party v. Barbour, 491 F. Supp. 2d 641 (N.D. Miss. 2007). “28 C.F.R. § 51.7 . When submitted to the Attorney General, the Department of Justice has 60 days to approve or reject the change.”
Barnett v. Bailey, 956 F.2d 1036 (11th Cir. 1992). “13 (g). The fact that the Democratic Executive Committee, rather than the state or one of its political subdivisions, was responsible for candidate qualification does not remove that change from coverage under section 5.”
Fortune v. Kings Cnty. Democratic Cnty. Comm., 598 F. Supp. 761 (E.D.N.Y 1984). “The impact of this statute was applied to some actions of a political party by 28 C.F.R. § 51.7 : Certain activities of political parties are subject to the preclearanee requirement of Section 5.”
Broussard v. Perez, 416 F. Supp. 584 (E.D. La. 1976). “28 C.F.R. § 51.7 . Accordingly, no effective submission was ever made so that the Attorney General did not fail to object to the changes in the School Board’s election system.”
Morse v. Oliver North for U.S. Senate Comm., Inc., 853 F. Supp. 212 (W.D. Va. 1994). “Changes with respect to the conduct of primary elections at which party nominees, delegates to party conventions, or party officials are chosen are subject to the preclearance requirement of section 5.”
Morse v. Oliver North for Us Senate, 853 F. Supp. 212 (W.D. Va. 1994). “28 C.F.R. § 51.7 (July 1, 1993). Here, there is no doubt that the Party is not conducting a primary election, and there is no voting as defined.”
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.