28 C.F.R. § 55.2

Purpose; standards for measuring compliance

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

(a) The purpose of this part is to set forth the Attorney General's interpretation of the provisions of the Voting Rights Act which require certain States and political subdivisions to conduct elections in the language of certain “language minority groups” in addition to English.

(b) In the Attorney General's view the objective of the Act's provisions is to enable members of applicable language minority groups to participate effectively in the electoral process. This part establishes two basic standards by which the Attorney General will measure compliance:

(1) That materials and assistance should be provided in a way designed to allow members of applicable language minority groups to be effectively informed of and participate effectively in voting-connected activities; and

(2) That an affected jurisdiction should take all reasonable steps to achieve that goal.

(c) The determination of what is required for compliance with section 4(f)(4) and section 203(c) is the responsibility of the affected jurisdiction. These guidelines should not be used as a substitute for analysis and decision by the affected jurisdiction.

(d) Jurisdictions covered under section 4(f)(4) of the Act are subject to the preclearance requirements of section 5. See part 51 of this chapter. Such jurisdictions have the burden of establishing to the satisfaction of the Attorney General or to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that changes made in their election laws and procedures in order to comply with the requirements of section 4(f)(4) are not discriminatory under the terms of section 5. However, section 5 expressly provides that the failure of the Attorney General to object does not bar any subsequent judicial action to enjoin the enforcement of the changes.

(e) Jurisdictions covered solely under section 203(c) of the Act are not subject to the preclearance requirements of section 5, nor is there a Federal apparatus available for preclearance of section 203(c) compliance activities. The Attorney General will not preclear jurisdictions' proposals for compliance with section 203(c).

(f) Consideration by the Attorney General of a jurisdiction's compliance with the requirements of section 4(f)(4) occurs in the review pursuant to section 5 of the Act of changes with respect to voting, in the consideration of the need for litigation to enforce the requirements of section 4(f)(4), and in the defense of suits for termination of coverage under section 4(f)(4). Consideration by the Attorney General of a jurisdiction's compliance with the requirements of section 203(c) occurs in the consideration of the need for litigation to enforce the requirements of section 203(c).

(g) In enforcing the Act—through the section 5 preclearance review process, through litigation, and through defense of suits for termination of coverage under section 4(f)(4)—the Attorney General will follow the general policies set forth in this part.

(h) This part is not intended to preclude affected jurisdictions from taking additional steps to further the policy of the Act. By virtue of the Supremacy Clause of Art. VI of the Constitution, the provisions of the Act override any inconsistent State law.

[Order No. 655-76, 41 FR 29998, July 20, 1976, as amended by Order No. 1246-87, 53 FR 736, Jan. 12, 1988]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Padilla v. Lever, 463 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Padilla v. Lever, 463 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “” 28 C.F.R. § 55.2 (b).3 2 In Sheffield, the Court explained, What is perhaps a more compelling argument concerning the original, and subsequent, congressional understanding of the scope of § 5 is that the Attorney General has, since the Act was adopted in 1965, interpreted § 5…”

United States v. Sandoval Cnty., Nm, 797 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (D.N.M. 2011). · cites it 2× “” 28 C.F.R. § 55.2 (b)(1) & (2) (emphasis added).”

Delgado v. Smith, 861 F.2d 1489 (11th Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “The Justice Department’s inclusion of petitions as an example of materials that must be provided in the language of the applicable language minority group is consistent with its position that “the objective of the Act’s provisions is to enable members of applicable language…”

Padilla v. Lever, 429 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “”10 28 C.F.R. § 55.2 (b). According to the district court, however, “[t]he private recall petition process does not involve ‘voting’ because inherent in the concept of ‘voting’ is the exercise of a choice between two or more alternatives that has an effect on the out- come of an…”

United States v. McKinley Cnty., NM, 941 F. Supp. 1062 (D.N.M. 1996). “The Attorney General realizes as much in 28 C.F.R. §§ 55.2 (c), 55.14(c), which state that a jurisdiction covered under § 203(c) should determine what is necessary to comply with .”

Navajo Nation Human Rights Comm'n v. San Juan Cnty., 215 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (D. Utah 2016). · cites it 6× “” 28 C.F.R. §§ 55.2 , 55.20. Plaintiffs respond by pointing to eases in which courts have exercised jurisdiction over claims brought by private plaintiffs to enforce Section 203.”

Asian Americans Advancing Just.-L.A. v. Padilla (Cal. Ct. App. 2019). “4, 2019]; 28 C.F.R. §§ 55.2 (a) & (b), 55.4. 2) The Voting Rights Act expressly defines “language minorities” and/or “language minority group[s]” as persons who are of Asian American, American Indian, Alaskan Natives, or Spanish heritage.”

Toyukak v. Meyer (D. Alaska 2023). “The parties agree that the Division’s compliance with this Order will be measured by the standards set out in 28 C.F.R. § 55.2 . VIII. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS UNDER THE ORDER A.”

Toyukak v. Meyer (D. Alaska 2025). “The parties agree that the Division’s compliance with this Order will be measured by the standards set out in 28 C.F.R. § 55.2 . Case No. 3:13-cv-00137-SLG, Toyukak v.”

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.