42 U.S.C. § 1974
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1960–2021 · leading case: Proj. Vote, Inc. v. Kemp, 208 F. Supp. 3d 1320 (N.D. Ga. 2016).
Proj. Vote, Inc. v. Kemp, 208 F. Supp. 3d 1320 (N.D. Ga. 2016). “As the True the Vote court observed, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, 42 U.S.C. § 1974 , requires State elections officers to preserve “all records and papers which come into [their] possession relating to any application, registration.”
Scolaro v. Dist. of Columbia Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 104 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2000). “Plaintiffs’ fifth claim for relief is based on the theory that the Board’s alleged practice of destroying administrative affidavits regarding special ballots after those ballots have been counted violates 42 U.S.C. §§ 1974 and 1974a. Plaintiffs’ sixth claim for relief consists…”
True the Vote v. Hosemann, 43 F. Supp. 3d 693 (S.D. Miss. 2014). “Under the Civil Rights Act of 1960, 42 U.S.C. § 1974 , 197 State elections officers are required to preserve “all records and papers which come into [their] possession relating to any application, registration .”
United States v. State of Mississippi, 229 F. Supp. 925 (S.D. Miss. 1964). “" If this statute were to be construed as requiring registrars to destroy records under the circumstances named, it would at most be in conflict with the Federal Statute ( 42 U.S.C. § 1974 ). It does not do so. The words "not required to retain" should not be interpreted to mean…”
Price v. Town of Fairlee, 2011 VT 48 (Vt. 2011). “[3] As world events regularly demonstrate, moreover, secrecy is no guarantee of political stability or public confidence in the integrity of elections or elected officials. [4] Under the dissent’s analysis the demand for access would never, except as described below, be ripe for…”
Bldg. Indus. Ass'n v. Mccarthy, 218 P.3d 196 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “[9] ¶ 27 BIAW also contends that because the auditor's office appears to destroy emails, such destruction might violate the federal Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1974 . This mere allegation is speculative and insufficient to avoid summary judgment.”
Bldg. Indus. Ass'n v. McCarthy, 152 Wash. App. 720 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “” (capitalization omitted)). 9 ¶27 BIAW also contends that because the auditor’s office appears to destroy e-mails, such destruction might violate the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.”
United States v. Mississippi, 380 U.S. 128 (1965). “88 , 42 U. S. C. §§ 1974 -1974e (1958 ed., Supp.”
United States v. Theron C. Lynd, Circuit Clerk & Registrar of Voters of Forrest Cnty., State of Mississippi, 301 F.2d 818 (5th Cir. 1962). “At that time the United States formally requested that the defendant Lynd, the Registrar of Forrest County, make his registration records available for inspec *820 tion and copying under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1974 et seq. These efforts proving…”
State Ex Rel. Gallion v. Rogers, 187 F. Supp. 848 (M.D. Ala. 1960). “86 , 42 U.S.C.A. § 1974 et seq.), seeks to have this Court enter an order directed to the members of the Board of Registrars of Montgomery County, Alabama, for the production of all records and papers in their possession or under their control relating to any application,…”
Banfield v. Aichele, 51 A.3d 300 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012). “42 U.S.C. § 1974 . For municipal elections, the county board of elections must retain the ballot images for a[sic] least 20 days, unless ordered otherwise by a court as provided at Section 1230 of the Election Code, 25 P.”
Weems v. McCloud, 619 F.2d 1081 (5th Cir. 1980). “This court noted that the proceeding was summary in nature, that the scope of the judicial function was limited and fixed by statute, and most significantly, that several procedural rules were inapplicable in light of the nature of the proceeding.”
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.