C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 55—IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT REGARDING LANGUAGE MINORITY GROUPS › Subpart D—Minority Language Materials and Assistance

28 C.F.R. § 55.17

Targeting

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

The term “targeting” is commonly used in discussions of the requirements of section 4(f)(4) and section 203(c). “Targeting” refers to a system in which the minority language materials or assistance required by the Act are provided to fewer than all persons or registered voters. It is the view of the Attorney General that a targeting system will normally fulfill the Act's minority language requirements if it is designed and implemented in such a way that language minority group members who need minority language materials and assistance receive them.

[Order No. 655-76, 41 FR 29998, July 20, 1976, as amended by Order No. 1752-93, 58 FR 35373, July 1, 1993]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Soto-Elliott v. Shipley (D. Neb. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Soto-Elliott v. Shipley (D. Neb. 2025). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff alleges the defendants have “target[ed] the plaintiff for over 7 years” in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 55.17 , which defines “targeting” as “a system in which the minority language materials or assistance required by the [Voting Rights] Act are provided to fewer than all…”
Doi v. Bell, 449 F. Supp. 267 (D. Haw. 1978). “3000 (1976) (to be codified in 28 C.F.R. § 55.17 ). 32 . Id. 33 . Memorandum Responding to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, at 18-19.”
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.