42 U.S.C. § 1973j
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case: Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1968).
Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1968). “I), provides: "The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section and shall exercise the same without regard to whether a person asserting rights under the provisions of this Act shall have exhausted any…”
Hathorn v. Lovorn, 457 U.S. 255 (1982). “444 , 42 U. S. C. § 1973j(d). [20] At least one state court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction over claims arising under the Voting Rights Act.”
Shelby Cnty. v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013). “997 (1994), and injunctive relief is available in appropriate cases to block voting laws from going into effect, see 42 U. S. C. §1973j(d). Section 2 is permanent, applies nationwide, and is not at issue in this case.”
Morse v. Repub. Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186 (1996). “§ 1973j(c) (1988 ed.) (emphasis added). [45] The Senate Report went on to explain more generally: "In enacting remedial legislation, Congress has regularly established a dual enforcement mechanism.”
United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010). “§5520, currently 42 U. S. C. §1973j (criminaliz ing voting-rights violations) in furtherance of the Four teenth and Fifteenth Amendments); Sabri, supra, (uphold ing criminal statute enacted in furtherance of the Spending Clause); Jinks, supra, at 462 , n.”
Hall v. Louisiana, 974 F. Supp. 2d 978 (M.D. La. 2013). “Hall’s Claims Under Section 1973j of the Voting Rights Act Schedler also contends that Hall has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1973j, because such actions must be brought by the Attorney General of the United States.”
Brown v. Bd. of Sch. Com'rs of Mobile Cty., Ala., 542 F. Supp. 1078 (S.D. Ala. 1982). “The court concludes that such was the case here. JURISDICTION The United States is a party to this lawsuit.”
Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973). “The Attorney General of the United States brought this suit under § 12 (d) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973j (d), to enjoin the State of Georgia from conducting elections for its House of Representatives under the 1972 legislative reapportionment…”
State of South Carolina v. United States of Am., 898 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2012). “42 U.S.C. § 1973j(d). And the Supreme Court long ago recognized a 15 Of course, Section 5 applies only when South Carolina “enact[s] or seek[s] to administer” a voting change.”
LaRoque v. Holder, 650 F.3d 777 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “Turning to the issue of causation, we agree with Nix that his alleged injuries are fairly traceable to the Attorney General’s insistence on enforcing section 5’s preclearance requirement.”
United States v. Marengo Cnty. Comm'n, 731 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1984). “At oral argument the defendants put forth the contention that section 2 cannot be applied retroactively because violations of section 2 are punishable as criminal offenses under section 12 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973j(a), (c) (1976). The defendants assert that…”
Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245 (N.D. Miss. 1987). “§§ 1331 and 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1973j(f), the eight named individual plaintiffs and two organizational plaintiffs brought this voting rights action individually and on behalf of two plaintiff classes which have previously been certified in this action as: (1) all black citizens…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973j(a) — 3 cases
Morse v. Repub. Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186 (1996). “§ 1973j(c) (1988 ed.) (emphasis added). [45] The Senate Report went on to explain more generally: "In enacting remedial legislation, Congress has regularly established a dual enforcement mechanism.”
United States v. Marengo Cnty. Comm'n, 731 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1984). “At oral argument the defendants put forth the contention that section 2 cannot be applied retroactively because violations of section 2 are punishable as criminal offenses under section 12 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973j(a), (c) (1976). The defendants assert that…”
Cameron v. Johnson, 262 F. Supp. 873 (S.D. Miss. 1966).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973j(b) — 1 case
Dickie v. Rabbit, 956 F. Supp. 67 (D. Mass. 1997).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973j(c) — 1 case
Morse v. Repub. Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186 (1996). “§ 1973j(c) (1988 ed.) (emphasis added). [45] The Senate Report went on to explain more generally: "In enacting remedial legislation, Congress has regularly established a dual enforcement mechanism.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973j(d) — 22 cases
Shelby Cnty. v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013). “997 (1994), and injunctive relief is available in appropriate cases to block voting laws from going into effect, see 42 U. S. C. §1973j(d). Section 2 is permanent, applies nationwide, and is not at issue in this case.”
Hathorn v. Lovorn, 457 U.S. 255 (1982). “444 , 42 U. S. C. § 1973j(d). [20] At least one state court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction over claims arising under the Voting Rights Act.”
State of South Carolina v. United States of Am., 898 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2012). “42 U.S.C. § 1973j(d). And the Supreme Court long ago recognized a 15 Of course, Section 5 applies only when South Carolina “enact[s] or seek[s] to administer” a voting change.”
LaRoque v. Holder, 650 F.3d 777 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “Turning to the issue of causation, we agree with Nix that his alleged injuries are fairly traceable to the Attorney General’s insistence on enforcing section 5’s preclearance requirement.”
United States v. Vill. of Port Chester, 704 F. Supp. 2d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973j(e) — 1 case
Dickie v. Rabbit, 956 F. Supp. 67 (D. Mass. 1997).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973j(f) — 34 cases
Hathorn v. Lovorn, 457 U.S. 255 (1982). “444 , 42 U. S. C. § 1973j(d). [20] At least one state court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction over claims arising under the Voting Rights Act.”
Brown v. Bd. of Sch. Com'rs of Mobile Cty., Ala., 542 F. Supp. 1078 (S.D. Ala. 1982). “The court concludes that such was the case here. JURISDICTION The United States is a party to this lawsuit.”
Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245 (N.D. Miss. 1987). “§§ 1331 and 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1973j(f), the eight named individual plaintiffs and two organizational plaintiffs brought this voting rights action individually and on behalf of two plaintiff classes which have previously been certified in this action as: (1) all black citizens…”
United States v. Dallas Cnty. Comm'n, 548 F. Supp. 875 (S.D. Ala. 1982).
Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna, La., 636 F. Supp. 1113 (E.D. La. 1986).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973j(n) — 1 case
Dickie v. Rabbit, 956 F. Supp. 67 (D. Mass. 1997).
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.