U.S. Code » Title 52 » Subtitle Subtitle I— Voting Rights › Chapter CHAPTER 103— ENFORCEMENT OF VOTING RIGHTS

52 U.S.C. § 10304

Alteration of voting qualifications; procedure and appeal; purpose or effect of diminishing the ability of citizens to elect their preferred candidates

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 52 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 10303(a) of this title based upon determinations made under the first sentence of section 10303(b) of this title are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, or whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 10303(a) of this title based upon determinations made under the second sentence of section 10303(b) of this title are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1968, or whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 10303(a) of this title based upon determinations made under the third sentence of section 10303(b) of this title are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1972, such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 10303(f)(2) of this title, and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, or upon good cause shown, to facilitate an expedited approval within sixty days after such submission, the Attorney General has affirmatively indicated that such objection will not be made. Neither an affirmative indication by the Attorney General that no objection will be made, nor the Attorney General’s failure to object, nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure. In the event the Attorney General affirmatively indicates that no objection will be made within the sixty-day period following receipt of a submission, the Attorney General may reserve the right to reexamine the submission if additional information comes to his attention during the remainder of the sixty-day period which would otherwise require objection in accordance with this section. Any action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.(b) Any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting that has the purpose of or will have the effect of diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 10303(f)(2) of this title, to elect their preferred candidates of choice denies or abridges the right to vote within the meaning of subsection (a) of this section.(c) The term “purpose” in subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall include any discriminatory purpose.(d) The purpose of subsection (b) of this section is to protect the ability of such citizens to elect their preferred candidates of choice.(Pub. L. 89–110, title I, § 5, Aug. 6, 1965, 79 Stat. 439; renumbered title I and amended Pub. L. 91–285, §§ 2, 5, June 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 314, 315; Pub. L. 94–73, title II, §§ 204, 206, title IV, § 405, Aug. 6, 1975, 89 Stat. 402, 404; Pub. L. 109–246, § 5, July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 580.)Editorial NotesCodification

Section was formerly classified to section 1973c of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section. Some section numbers referenced in amendment notes below reflect the classification of such sections prior to their editorial reclassification to this title.

Amendments

2006—Pub. L. 109–246 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), substituted “neither has the purpose nor will have the effect” for “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect”, and added subsecs. (b) to (d).

1975—Pub. L. 94–73 inserted “or whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 1973b(a) of this title based upon determinations made under third sentence of section 1973b(b) of this title are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1972,” after 1968, substituted “or upon good cause shown, to facilitate an expedited approval within sixty days after such submission, the Attorney General has affirmatively indicated that such objection will not be made. Neither an affirmative indication by the Attorney General that no objection will be made, nor the Attorney General’s failure to object,” for “except that neither the Attorney General’s failure to object”, and “on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title” for “on account of race or color”, and inserted provisions that in the event the Attorney General affirmatively indicates that no objection will be made within the sixty-day period following receipt of a submission, the Attorney General may reserve the right to examine the submission if additional information comes to his attention during the remainder of the sixty-day period which would otherwise require objection in accordance with this section.

1970—Pub. L. 91–285 inserted “based upon determinations made under the first sentence of section 1973b(b) of this title” after “section 1973b(a) of this title” and “or whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 1973b(a) of this title based upon determinations made under the second sentence of section 1973b(b) of this title are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1968,” after “1964,”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 2014–2024 · leading case: Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015). · cites it 9× “- tecting incumbents—it placed yet greater importance on two goals: (1) minimizing a district’s deviation from precisely equal population, by keeping any deviation less than 1% of the theoretical ideal; and (2) seeking to avoid retrogression with respect to racial minorities’…”
League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014). · cites it 6× “” 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (a). 11 A meeting of the Rules Committee was subsequently scheduled for July 23.”
Voketz v. City of Decatur, 904 F.3d 902 (11th Cir. 2018). · cites it 5× “52 U.S.C. § 10304 (a). Without preclearance, *905 § 5 stipulated that covered jurisdictions like Decatur could not enact or administer any laws that would have a retrogressive effect on minority voting power-meaning that a minority population's ability to elect its preferred…”
Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455 (2017). · cites it 2× “For one thing, a State like North Caro- lina that was either wholly or partially within the coverage of §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 could not redistrict without heeding that provision’s prohibition against racial retrogression, see 52 U.”
Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 137 S. Ct. 788 (2017). · cites it 3× “580 -581, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (b). After the redistricting process here was completed, this Court held that the coverage formula in § 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act no longer may be used to require preclearance under § 5.”
North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “” 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (2012) (formerly 42 U.S.”
Leslie Feldman v. Arizona Sec'y of State's Ofc., 843 F.3d 366 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “52 U.S.C. § 10304 . The Arizona Attorney General submitted S.”
Covington v. North Carolina, 316 F.R.D. 117 (M.D.N.C. 2016). · cites it 3× “Because Defendants have failed to demonstrate that their predominant use of race was reasonably necessary to further a compelling state interest, the twenty-eight challenged districts in North Carolina’s 2011 State House and Senate redistricting plans constitute racial…”
State of Texas v. United States, 798 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 3× “MILLETT, Circuit Judge: The State of Texas appeals the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to three intervenors in Texas’s lawsuit under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 . Rather than file a memorandum of points and authorities opposing the three…”
Dickson v. Rucho, 766 S.E.2d 238 (N.C. 2014). · cites it 6× “1 Effective 1 September 2014, section 5 of the VRA is codified at 52 U.S.C.S. § 10304 (LexisNexis 2014). Section 5 previously was codified at 42 U.”
Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 326 F. Supp. 3d 128 (E.D. Va. 2018). · cites it 5× “We further hold that the intervenors have not satisfied their burden to show that the legislature's use of race was narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interest of compliance with Section 5 of the VRA, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 . I. We begin with an overview of the…”
Dickson v. Rucho, 368 N.C. 481 (N.C. 2015). · cites it 4× “On 27 July, the General Assembly ratified the 2011 North Carolina Senate redistricting plan and the 2011 plan for the federal House of 5Effective 1 September 2014, section 5 of the VRA is codified at 52 U.S.C.S. § 10304 (LexisNexis 2014). Section 5 previously was codified at 42…”
Show all 53 citing cases →
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.