42 U.S.C. § 15481
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2003–2024 · leading case: Kuznik v. Westmoreland Cnty. Bd. of Com'rs, 902 A.2d 476 (Pa. 2006).
Kuznik v. Westmoreland Cnty. Bd. of Com'rs, 902 A.2d 476 (Pa. 2006). “" 42 U.S.C. § 15481 (a)(3)(A). Because of this, we find that the state referendum requirement is preempted.”
Kuznik v. Westmoreland Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 902 A.2d 476 (Pa. 2006). “” 42 U.S.C. § 15481 (a)(3)(A). Because of this, we find that the state referendum requirement is preempted.”
Chavez v. Brewer, 214 P.3d 397 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “” 42 U.S.C. § 15481 (a)(3)(B), (a)(4). States were required to comply with HAVA no later than January 1, 2006.”
Shambach v. Bickhart, 845 A.2d 793 (Pa. 2004). “The Department of State adopted the Notice, in which Optical Scan Standard 14 is included, to comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. § 15481 (a)(6), which requires that each state adopt uniform and nondiscriminatory standards to define what constitutes a vote…”
Effie Stewart v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, 444 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 2006). “42 U.S.C. § 15481 . The Act requires independent notice technology, the opportunity to change the ballot before it is cast, and an FEC compliant error rate.”
Bay Cnty. Democratic Party v. Land, 347 F. Supp. 2d 404 (E.D. Mich. 2004). “Sections 301, 303-304; 42 U.S.C. § 15481 , 15483-84. Section 302 of the Act requires the States to implement,a procedure that allows a voter whose eligibility is challenged to cast a provisional ballot and to have such a system in place “on and after January 1, 2004.”
State Ex Rel. League v. Herrera, 203 P.3d 94 (N.M. 2009). “" 42 U.S.C. § 15481 (a)(6). {24} We are unable to find case law, state or federal, specifically interpreting the portion of HAVA at issue in this case, and the parties in this case cited none.”
State ex rel. League of Women Voters v. Herrera, 2009 NMSC 003 (N.M. 2009). “” 42 U.S.C. § 15481 (a)(6). {24} We are unable to find case law, state or federal, specifically interpreting the portion of HAVA at issue in this ease, and the parties in this case cited none.”
Crowley v. Ex rel. Nevada Sec'y of State, 678 F.3d 730 (9th Cir. 2012). “Crowley further asserts that the district court erred in ruling that he could not seek declaratory relief for alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 15481 . Lastly, he argues that the district court erred by holding that he could not assert a private claim for violations of HAVA §…”
Marks v. Gessler, 350 P.3d 883 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “T 74 Defendants' reliance on this statute is misplaced because, by its express language, it only allows the United States Attorney General to bring a claim in a federal district court to enforce the requirements of 42 U.S.C. §§ 15481 , 15482, and 15488. However, the issue here…”
Broyles v. Texas, 618 F. Supp. 2d 661 (S.D. Tex. 2009). “” 42 U.S.C. § 15481 . There is no basis to conclude that the provisions of *693 § 15482 apply to voting that does not involve “elections for Federal office.”
Johnson v. Martins, 942 N.E.2d 1043 (NY 2010). “Under the Election Reform and Modernization Act of 2005 (L 2005, ch 181), adopted in order to implement New York’s new regime of voting by the use of electronic scanning machines, mandated by the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 ( 42 USC § 15481 ), voters scan marked…”
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.