52 U.S.C. § 10501
Application of prohibition to other States; “test or device” defined
Section was formerly classified to section 1973aa 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.
1975—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–73 struck out “Prior to
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2016–2024 · leading case: Ne. Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted, 837 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2016).
Ne. Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted, 837 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2016). “” 52 U.S.C. § 10501 (a) (Supp. II Vol. III 2015).”
Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Sec'y of State for the State of Alabama, 992 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2021). “Violation of Section 201 of the Voting Rights Act Plaintiffs also attack the law’s option for voters to be “positively identified” by election officials, arguing that the PIP is a voting “test or device” and “violates the prohibition on those tests or devices enumerated in…”
Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Merrill, 284 F. Supp. 3d 1253 (N.D. Ala. 2018). “Secretary Merrill denies Plaintiffs' allegations and contends that the law was passed for valid and non-discriminatory purposes, that nearly every eligible voter in Alabama has an acceptable photo ID, and that anyone who does not have an acceptable photo ID can easily obtain one.”
Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama, 161 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (N.D. Ala. 2016). “” 52 U.S.C. § 10501 (a). As used in the VRA, the term ‘test or device’ means any requirement that a person as a prerequisite for voting or registration for voting (1) demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter, (2) demonstrate any educational…”
Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Sec'y of State for the State of Alabama, 966 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2020). “Violation of Section 201 of the Voting Rights Act Plaintiffs also attack the law’s option for voters to be “positively identified” by election officials, arguing that the PIP is a voting “test or device” and “violates the prohibition on those tests or devices enumerated in…”
Madera v. Detzner, 325 F. Supp. 3d 1269 (N.D. Fla. 2018). “Smith's report to be credible, his methodology sound, and his sources, such as the American Community Survey, to be reliable.”
Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Merrill, 250 F. Supp. 3d 1238 (N.D. Ala. 2017). “Count Two alleges that § 17-9-30(e) of the law, which states that a prospective in-person voter without the required photo ID may still cast a regular ballot if two election officials present at the polling place “positively identify” that person, violates the prohibition on-…”
Colon v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Elections (W.D.N.Y. 2021). “§ 1973aa has been transferred to 52 U.S.C. § 10501 and 42 U.S.C. § 1973b to 52 U.”
Liebert, Susan v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n (W.D. Wis. 2024). “” 52 U.S.C. § 10501 (a). The statutory definition for “test or device” includes “any requirement that a person as a prerequisite for voting or registration for voting prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class.”
Liebert, Susan v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n (W.D. Wis. 2024). “§ 10101 (a)(2)(C), and the Voting Rights Act more broadly prohibits the use of “any test or device” to deny someone’s “right to vote,” 52 U.S.C. § 10501 (a). So there is nothing surprising about Congress intending the Materiality Provision to have a targeted scope.”
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.