42 U.S.C. § 1973c
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 825
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1966–2023 · leading case: Branch v. Smith
Branch v. Smith (2003)
“439 , 42 U. S. C. § 1973c), and asked that it order at-large elections pursuant to Miss.”
Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996)
“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 Parish School Board (1997)
“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 County, Ala. v. Holder (2012)
“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 (2002)
“…or, alternatively, to obtain a declaratory ruling from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 42 U.S.C. § 1973c; see also Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 528”
City of Rome v. United States (1980)
“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. S. C. § 1973c, made after November…”
Cannon v. University of Chicago (1979)
“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. § 1973cserved to trigger the enforcement mechanism provided in the statute itself.”
Presley v. Etowah County Commission (1992)
“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 America (2012)
“§ 1973c(a), and we took jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1973c and 28 U.”
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
“439 , as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, the General Assembly passed new legislation creating a second majority-black district.”
Florida v. United States (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,…”
Georgia v. Ashcroft (2002)
“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…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(a) — 49 cases
Florida v. United States (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 County, Ala. v. Holder (2012)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. Alternatively, it can seek approval from a three-judge district court in the District of Columbia.”
Vandermost v. Bowen (2012)
LaRoque v. Holder (2011)
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(b) — 15 cases
Bartlett v. Strickland (2009)
Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder (2012)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. Alternatively, it can seek approval from a three-judge district court in the District of Columbia.”
Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
State of Texas v. United States of America (2012)
“§ 1973c(a), and we took jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1973c and 28 U.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(c) — 14 cases
Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder (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 (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 America (2012)
“§ 1973c(a), and we took jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1973c and 28 U.”
Riley v. Kennedy (2008)
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(d) — 7 cases
State of Texas v. United States of America (2012)
“§ 1973c(a), and we took jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1973c and 28 U.”
Laroque v. Holder (2011)
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(e) — 3 cases
Florida v. United States (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,…”
Laroque v. Holder (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.