Vicky M. Lopez, et al. v. Monterey County, California, et al. (519 U.S. 9)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided November 6, 1996 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 519 U.S. 9 · 117 S. Ct. 340
- Decided
- November 6, 1996
- Term
- October Term 1996
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice O'Connor
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal presents a challenge to an order by a three-judge District Court for the Northern District of California that authorized Monterey County to conduct judicial elections under an election plan that has not received federal approval pursuant to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. HH The State of California has 58 counties, one of which is Monterey County (hereinafter County). In 1971, the Attorney General designated the County a covered jurisdiction under § 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 438, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973b(b). 36 Fed. Reg. 5809 (1971); see 28 CFR pt. 51, App. (1995). As a result, the County became subject to the federal preelearance requirements set forth in § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c. Section 5 governs changes in voting procedures, with the purpose of preventing jurisdictions covered by its requirements from enacting or seeking to administer voting changes that have a discriminatory purpose or effect. As a jurisdiction covered by §5, Monterey County must obtain federal preclearance — either administrative or judicial — of any voting practice different from the practices in effect on November 1, 1968. To obtain administrative preclearance of a changed voting practice, a covered jurisdiction submits the enactment to the Attorney General of the United States. If the…
Excerpt of a 28,279-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.