§Why CasetextPricing

LITTLE v. KING et al

MOTION for Three-Judge Court

7 Cited authorities

  1. Allen v. State Board of Elections

    393 U.S. 544 (1969)   Cited 623 times
    Holding that private parties may enforce § 5 of the VRA

  2. Lopez v. Monterey County

    525 U.S. 266 (1999)   Cited 63 times
    Upholding the Voting Rights Act's application of pre-clearance requirements against partially covered state governments as appropriate legislation deterring violations of the Fifteenth Amendment by county governments at the direction of the state

  3. Lopez v. Monterey County

    519 U.S. 9 (1996)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that preclearance of state statute did not result in preclearance of local ordinance based on statute

  4. Larouche v. Fowler

    152 F.3d 974 (D.C. Cir. 1998)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that the district court in not convening a three-judge panel to decide claim brought under Voting Rights Act

  5. Section 1973c - Transferred

    42 U.S.C. § 1973c   Cited 894 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth the requirements of § 5

  6. Section 1973b - Transferred

    42 U.S.C. § 1973b   Cited 256 times
    Specifying jurisdictions where § 5 applies

  7. Appendix to Part 51 - Jurisdictions Covered Under Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, as Amended

    28 C.F.R. § 51 app to Part 51   Cited 24 times

    The requirements of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended, apply in the following jurisdictions. The applicable date is the date that was used to determine coverage and the date after which changes affecting voting are subject to the preclearance requirement. Some jurisdictions, for example, Yuba County, California, are included more than once because they have been determined on more than one occasion to be covered under section 4(b). Jurisdiction Applicable date Federal Register citation