U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 20— ELECTIVE FRANCHISE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I–A— ENFORCEMENT OF VOTING RIGHTS

42 U.S.C. § 1973c

Transferred

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

[transferred]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 825 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1966–2023 · leading case: Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254 (2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254 (2003). · cites it 14× “439 , 42 U. S. C. § 1973c), and asked that it order at-large elections pursuant to Miss.”
Morse v. Repub. Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186 (1996). · cites it 24× “439 , 442, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1973c [1] and 1973h, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [2] and *192 the Twenty-fourth Amendment [3] to the Constitution.”
Reno v. Bossier Par. Sch. Bd., 520 U.S. 471 (1997). · cites it 18× “I Appellee Bossier Parish School Board (Board) is a jurisdiction subject to the preclearance requirements of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, and must therefore obtain the approval of either the United States Attorney General or the United States…”
Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848 (D.C. Cir. 2012). · cites it 25× “See 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. Alternatively, it can seek approval from a three-judge district court in the District of Columbia.”
Stephenson v. Bartlett, 562 S.E.2d 377 (N.C. 2002). · cites it 10× “42 U.S.C. § 1973c; see also Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch.”
City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980). · cites it 10× “Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires preclearance by the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia of any change in a *161 "standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting," 42 U.”
Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979). · cites it 6× “The cause of action there recognized— for declaratory relief that a voting change is subject to the authorization requirements of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c—served to trigger the enforcement mechanism provided in the statute itself.”
Presley v. Etowah Cnty. Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491 (1992). · cites it 14× “439 , as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c. These cases have significance well beyond the two county commissions; for the appellants, and the United States as amicus curiae, ask us to adopt a rule embracing the routine actions of state and local governments at all levels.”
State of Texas v. United States of Am., 887 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D.D.C. 2012). · cites it 17× “§ 1973c(a), and we took jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1973c and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (a)(2), 2201.”
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993). · cites it 8× “439 , as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, the General Assembly passed new legislation creating a second majority-black district.”
Florida v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 299 (D.D.C. 2012). · cites it 25× “PER CURIAM: The State of Florida brings this action for declaratory relief under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. Section 5 prohibits the enforcement of any change in voting practices or procedures in certain states and other covered jurisdictions,…”
Georgia v. Ashcroft, 195 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 20× “This is an action for declaratory judgment commenced by the State of Georgia under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c (1994) ("Section 5"). The State seeks a declaratory judgment that the redistricting plans passed by the Georgia General Assembly for…”
Show all 825 citing cases →
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(a) — 49 cases
Florida v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 299 (D.D.C. 2012). “PER CURIAM: The State of Florida brings this action for declaratory relief under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. Section 5 prohibits the enforcement of any change in voting practices or procedures in certain states and other covered jurisdictions,…”
Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “See 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. Alternatively, it can seek approval from a three-judge district court in the District of Columbia.”
State of South Carolina v. United States of Am., 898 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2012).
Vandermost v. Bowen, 269 P.3d 446 (Cal. 2012).
LaRoque v. Holder, 650 F.3d 777 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(b) — 15 cases
Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009).
Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “See 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. Alternatively, it can seek approval from a three-judge district court in the District of Columbia.”
Shelby Cnty. v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013).
State of Texas v. United States of Am., 887 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D.D.C. 2012). “§ 1973c(a), and we took jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1973c and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (a)(2), 2201.”
State of Texas v. United States of Am., 831 F. Supp. 2d 244 (D.D.C. 2011).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(c) — 14 cases
Shelby Cnty. v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013).
Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “See 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. Alternatively, it can seek approval from a three-judge district court in the District of Columbia.”
Florida v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 299 (D.D.C. 2012). “PER CURIAM: The State of Florida brings this action for declaratory relief under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. Section 5 prohibits the enforcement of any change in voting practices or procedures in certain states and other covered jurisdictions,…”
State of Texas v. United States of Am., 887 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D.D.C. 2012). “§ 1973c(a), and we took jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1973c and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (a)(2), 2201.”
Riley v. Kennedy, 553 U.S. 406 (2008).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(d) — 7 cases
State of Texas v. United States of Am., 887 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D.D.C. 2012). “§ 1973c(a), and we took jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1973c and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (a)(2), 2201.”
State of Texas v. United States of Am., 831 F. Supp. 2d 244 (D.D.C. 2011).
Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (M.D. Ala. 2013).
Laroque v. Holder, 831 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D.D.C. 2011).
In re 2011 Redistricting Cases, 294 P.3d 1032 (Alaska 2012).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(e) — 3 cases
Florida v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 299 (D.D.C. 2012). “PER CURIAM: The State of Florida brings this action for declaratory relief under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. Section 5 prohibits the enforcement of any change in voting practices or procedures in certain states and other covered jurisdictions,…”
Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (M.D. Ala. 2013).
Laroque v. Holder, 831 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D.D.C. 2011).
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.