Legal Research on Hearings before Subcommittee on Constitution Judiciary Committee on Voting Rights Act Amendments, Volume 1

    fik

Llh’TlNG if canon-mus PURSUANT 1'0 SECTION 5
W THC MING RIGHTS ACT, NOTING POST-OHJECTION ACTION,

JANUARY 1, 1975 THROUGH DECEMBER 31. 1981

m .

A. Conpliance without litigation or new Iubnission.

B. Litigation - Section 5 enforcement action - U.5.

C. Litigation - Section 5 eniorcaaent action - private.

D. Litigation - Section 5 declaratory relief action.

a. Litigation - private non-Section 5 action mooted change (court altered procedures underlying the
Section 5 change).

P. New Subaiuuion - no ob)ection. .

6. New Submission — obJection. '-

ii. Objection withdrawn.

1. Change implemented over the objection-—appropriato action being considered.

J. Recent objection-~co-plianco being monitored.

z-a mmvuv
09M

 

 

 

'~‘-~-~ .. , ~ ~« --- -~~-‘ -- Anvt- m». . m.~~-...w>——-m~‘m.,“‘ ”,0...“ ., M ____,,_

 

sun: ALABAMA

/£UIIBDICTION8 AFFECTED "P28 0' CHANGES OBJECTED 1‘0 Ofiggfggfl Posrfiizgflm
tellodoga (fauna-9a cty.) method of tiection (nu-bored pout.) J-ii-‘Is A
loirtiold Noll-tool- CtyJ Mneution bio-15 y I
Aloha-tor (lholby Cty.) Bil Annelltionl 1-1-75 1
honour Hatter-on Cty.) Bonn Annolationl 9-12-75 A
flunk city iluoull Ctyd‘ htnod ol zlection (staggered tor-a) “ 12-12-15 r
ltetc‘ niacciianaoua iporty nonination data; V i-li-‘IC r

contented elect ion proccdurui

Mcbnn CM" ladietricting (no-ocratic Party 1-..-” _

 

   
     
   
   
   
    
      
    
     
  
      
     
     
   
        

STATE: NORTH CAROLINA

DATE 0' POST‘ONEC‘I‘IOO
JURISDICTIONS AFFECTED TYPES OF CHANGES OBJECTS!) 1O OBJECTIGI ACTION
Luberton City School District Three Anneutione 6-2-15 C
(Robeeon Cty.)‘
Craven Cty. Board of Education' Redistricting; Method at Election 9-11-75 1/ ll i
moo-on Cty. Board a! wucation‘ Hethode of Election (at—large; ataqgered 12-29-75 I \ i

tent); Hiecellaneoue

Iiiiiaaaton (Martin cty.) netnod of Election (Itoqgered tar-u) 2-4-11
lucky mount (Iageco-be Cty.) Thirty-ell Anneaationa 12-9-77 3/

Paaquotank County Polling Place l-J—‘Il

> , 8 >

Laurinburg (Scotland Cty.) Nethode of Election (-ajority vote) 12-12-70
aeparation oi electoral conteete)

SLLI

      

Ileidaville (lockingha- Cty.) Method of Election (etagqerad tor-e) 0-1-1!
Greenvilla (Pitt Cty.) Method 0! Election (oajority vote) 1-1-80

Nev Iern (Craven Cty.) ‘rwo Annelationa 9-29-00 3/

93”

State‘ niacalianaoua (prohibition of division ll-Jo-M
of countiea in ”apportion-cot)

   
 
   
   
    

Btate' Rediatricting (Senate) Congreaaional) 12-1-01 J

 

Nithdraun 1-15-76.

Nithdratm 6-9-79.

la. "9‘!-
\

/ withdrawn 10-5-81.

 

   
   

 

        

.eaile-I so...

  

  

 
  

53:00:; 9.5 you nice. 0.... 3.51.: so...) euzvvo
Ion: coauueae I: .2 ogIcu I 0.3! 5139:3133 I nequ 5:51: .1 3539340 .2335: .9039... I957: 3F . .caleuou...
ocauIdne no concueoqecooeu I no Cezanne... so: :0 «ocean sack—5...: cos) 25:029.. go...) no. aumcezo «undo-u .330: :I \Ici.

Lenin... 2.343.”. noun: 4 2535.05; hos—5 a. o» «.3025: aunt—3.9 n .3 25:30: I. .3
I01..— aczao... I no c04ano~ e5 :. owe-:0 I 1.: 353335: a so .3120 a) a2: 35...... codes—3.2; I 0.. head: I :
.Ico‘uuaua<u:fi 0.. “one auouus— 5.39073 «9 nualzc 2: :35 nuance... .3 Cu Banana: c.3535 no eucli— ezfi \H

 

 

1.

nu. ma. ea 2,. N.» «I an a: v0 2. In e. an n S o a o .- max—<5...
m o o o a o a o e e a o c I I I I I I 02—sz
2 ~ _ . o a a . a a _ v . o o e a a 52.9.;
can I : o~ on 2 he a I I I I I I I I I I mine...
a e o q . a a I I I I I I I I I I I I553 3.50..
v- a o v a a 3 I on .I s a a o a a a a 5.39.: 2.52..
A a I I I o o a o I I I I I I I I I I 56:53
n 2 n . . n . a e a o a s a a o a o c 3.392.. .55..
A a a o o a o o _ e a a a I I I I I I .25.. .52
3 o I I I I I a o I I I I I I I I I I 03.5.. 2....
oo o o o a o o o a o I I I I I I I I I 5.25:2: 3....
7 2. n n e n s p a. w. n n 3 . m o a o o Einflmn;
1.. a o e a a e a I I I I I I I I I I I .2923...
e o o o o c a a c I I I I I I I I I Inf—amazing:
o I I I I o e a I I I I I I I I I I ”.22:
.3 e o a ~ . 3 a a a a. a. Q ~ : o o a 5.532...
e a e a a a c a a a a a I I I I I I 3.2:.
o e c a a a a a c a a a a o a c a o :52:
.34 m 2 a a Z 3 3 a. n. o. a. a a e o a a 5.9203
c o o o a a a o I I I I I I I I I I 4:23....
a o o o a a a a a I I I I I I I I I #375,...on
a o o o a c e a I I I I I I I I I I 3:53:3u
n e o a e n a, a c c c e I I I I I I 52.5.12...
n a o a c o a _ a a a a a a a a a I 5.3:...
o o c o a o o c I I I - I I I I I I 53.2..
2. h n _ A ~ 2 m. I E a w _ e. o o c a 5:35..
umIFIm

45—5... .aa— .394 2.94 2.: :2 0:.— 2.: egg 23‘ :3 :2 ohm. aca— ae: no: on: no:

3: .: .1553: I 32 :2...» 32 "2.5:.“ 2.

\Hauaomxu._.2— 223: u><: uZO—FUHGS =U:_2 9—. \HnHUZSC ,3 2.43832

 

 

IIOuI>I <Iu°u0e<e .: II.

I. II I ..

 

   

  

consideration

-Iuotiuu or A r.
‘ ‘ Jurieuictio

n Iade I change

raun alt.

 

“um I” (”a

I~IL
Objection.

removed the Dalia tor the

 

—.I u. l

 

 

ammonia-1n»:

NH

‘D-I‘l't‘i—‘t‘
ImUIhwlu|<waxemult~u

 

  

  

SF NLMSER
£IEI'CE 1965 RID

 

 

OF CHANGES
5..‘I'CS .1.)

 

 

N.m:er af ‘”ar~es 2b‘e::ed :c "
1355-1111/81 SIE/‘S-lZ’l‘fi‘.

   

 

 

3e::;ia .53
Lo; 3‘ana L86
Sc~ a 135:-.na 54
H.53 s;;;; 79
Alas-ma 77
ficr:: -;:3.;na 22
VL:;.1.a _i;

545

23.9:3: ::3:3s

, .
i»

 

Souzn :axcta
ALas<a

32.2:3dc

unuoouIQLIOIoI-Imwo

irauuo

 

I
4.
w

 
 

The accve 5; :es :3

Wfltawn :ased In

 

 

 

:nanges for w:

51
33
32

I..
ox w 4.
\l h p.- o;

, .
1.;
C)

UUQLJOQONIIIUIM

(Iguuoou

 

:ecznsije:31'

 

   
  
 
  
     

II anpuI- .euca auto—Il— cczua—I I... 152.5. . :It II.II..III. IIIIIIIII

7
1
.30.. xuuuooIl
=ng 60.21:: .euufae; nonlelIZGE.
2331. .3333 no 3923. 232.8: 9.23.5.3... . 33-
I :IZI: .lacceueueu agave; noose: :3 see: 1.025 n .238 Iva-In
L «73$ .33.. 9321...: .323:— uo 3...... . :58 33::

.Ieuzuo neoleaIaunal :I
anonIe ecu Iuaoo 69.21:... .3302.» no «.938. a one:

.30.. 3:0?! .eueoo vouealac
.eugze; uenloaIdu-aa. .3300:

 

 

unIoIn no Issue: 232:: 2:33-33: 0 SI..-
SO—kuu—Ino 9r auFUH—lflc mugs; no mum: Quay-u‘ mans-am—IDQ
uti—

<I~JOS<U =F§ .flks—h

’ I

 

.Ougoa n).- ..308 Cal...

 

 

 

upIhNIo :. IaIOa— conic. cadence—n no vogue: a Queen
IIMIIIIII .euIcen e...- Qesos Ique
. . :IoaIs 5 3.0.. 5331:... .332: no .653. . ea:-
.¢o:euue.vou .3- an:
:IONII 3-53.: 9.3.2.9... canes-doe: ~32. . one».
.cOZquI‘aeu no. see»
:I-Tn >oeueu3. ......,....c..._ gazes-does neuo> I one».
asIenIn ..._....._IuI. Excuse-u «0 69.»... e 7qu :0u!.:II8~ .3214.
Sorrow—‘0 a Guam—.8 Qua-2:0 ho was: nutmeu‘ want—au—laa
3 vii.

1756

.Ieoeua 9.2.9— ueguo «o 8.33.! 32—: :IT: 5:11»; \m

 

 

\Iu. thnIn Iequh ave—:0. Deni. The“. Inch 8-8- 125 III
.a—iea: equa .3330 a c.3138 to» tea
thuII equa :Ieo.eeeuucoo- emanate-ge- Qee Icah- 30::
8—85.00 2 0:82.00 mug—.0 5° nun: enmity: gmcmanmlam
so aha

 

:6» In: .IhS—i
, U . . .
turf. .mu Uwa I MST.

, 3

_ 31%.}. mffirrtww no? 1.335939 m§$9m50 mo pal
.m To LIA/ESEUEC‘.

 

 

1832

ATTACHMENT N-3

COUNTIES WHICH RECEIVED OBJECTIONS__TO CHANGES SUBMITTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
AUGUST 6, 1974 - DECEMBER 31, 1981

ALABAMA (1981)

Barbour (1981) Conecuh (1981) Mobile (1976) Shelby (1977)
Bibb (1976) Dallas (1930) Perry (1981) Sumter (1981)
Chambers (1976) Hale (1976) Pickens (1976) Talladega (1975)
Clarke (1979) Jefferson (1980) Pike (1974) Wilcox (1981)
Colbert (1976) Lowndes (1978) Russell (1975)
ARIZONA
Apache (1976) Cochise (1975)
CALIFORNIA

Monterey (1977) Yuba (1976)

:7 The‘EounEies shown here are derived from the complete lists of ob—
3ections found in Attachments D-1 and 0-2, and are based on our has:
available information. It should be noted, however, that variations

in interpretation of the bail-out standard are pOSSible.

In parentheses next to the jurisdiction is the year of the most recent
objection to a submission by a county or a political or geographical sub-
division thereof. In Virginia, independent Cities have been conSidered
counties for the purpose of this table. For fully covered states the
year of the most recent obgection to a state enactment appears in paren-
theses next to the State name. Under the bail-out standard of H.R. 3112
any obgection whatsoever in such states would serve as a bar to bail-out.

The table includes a limited number of counties that received
objections which were later withdrawn after a jurisdiction altered the sub-
mission, thereby removing the basis for the objection. Not con51dered for
this table, however, are objections later withdrawn Without alteration of
the original submission (if included, the following jurisdictions would be
added: Chatham, Lanier, Mitchell and Rockdale counties in Georgia; East
Baton Rouge Parish in Louisiana; Hinds County in MisaiSSippi; Craven and
Edgecombe counties in North Carolina; Brazos, Ward and Hidland counties in
Texas; and the City of Suffolk in Virginia).

 

Berrien (1980)

Bibb (1975)
Brooks (1978)
Bulloch (1980)
Camden (1978)
Charlton (1977)
Clarke (1975)

Colquitt (1977)

Caddo (1976)

Orleans

Attala (1976)
Benton (1975)
Bolivar (1973)
Clay (1975)
Coahoma (1977)
DeSoto (1977)

Grenada (1976)

Bronx

aartin

 

l8

G_EO§
Coweta (1975)
Decatur (1977)
Dekalb (1980)
Dooly (1950)
Floyd (1975)
Fulton (1977)
Glynn (1975)

Harris (1975)

w

Ouachita (l

(1978) Pointe Coup

MISSISS
Harrison (1980)
Holmes (1977)
Humphreys (1977)
Kemper (1975)
Leike (1975)
Lee (1977)

Leflore (1977)

NEW Y(

(1981) Kings (19!

NORTH CA!

(1977) Pitt (198

Pasquotank (1978) Robeson (

  

Berrien (1980)
Bibb (1975)
Brooks (1978)
Bulloch (1980)
Camden (1978)
Charlton (1977)
Clarke (1975)

Colquitt (1977)

Caddo (1976)

Orleans

Attala (1976)
Benton (1975)
Bolivar (1975)

Clay (1975)

DeSoto (1977)

Grenada (1976)

aronx (1981) Kings

Martin

(1978) Peinte Coupee

Pasquotank

1833

GEORGIA (1981)

Coweta (1975) Henry (1980)

Decatur (1977) Irwin (1975)

Dekalb (1980) Jefferson (1974)

Dooly (1980) Jones (1974)

Floyd (1975) Long (1976)

Fulton (1977) McDuEfie (1974)

Glynn (1975) Morgan (1975)

Harris (1975) Newton (1976)

LOUISIANA (1977)

Cuachita (1977)

MISSISSIPPI (1931)
Harrison (1980) Lowndes (1975)
Holmes (1977) hadison (1977)
Humphreys (1977) Marshall (1981)
Kemper (1975) Panola (1980)
Leake (1975) Quitman (1977)
Lee (1977) Stngson (1981)

Leflore

NEW YORK

(1931) New York

NORTH CAROLINA
(1977) Pitt (1980)

(1978) Rooeson (1975)

 

 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
   
   
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
     

Pike (1979)

Polk (1976)
Richmond (1981)
Spalding (1981)
Taliafero (1976)
Terrell (1977)
Walton (1976)

Wilkes (1976)

Rapides (1975)

(1978) Sabine (1976)

Ta11ahatchie (1977)
Tunica (l979)
Walthall (197a)
Ha.ren (1976)
Hinston (1980)

Yazoo {1977)

(1977) Sunflower (1981)

(1981)

Rockingham (1979)

Scotland (l978)

 

1842

N—S

ATTACHMENT

 

goo-oeauoum
coda )ocv cod-«loan

.ocaoccao no luau.
3.3.33

\M coat-c .n...
toad-v .a.o
cone-um .o.a

.33... 3......

 

2°u¢~0ufl

) 0

O 8
A 8 A 9 A
M 9 N 1 I
A 1 C I( G
.5 (x Z R
A '1 e C
L e R h E
\M )4 A C G

a a

H p

A

l 2. . .1133 «o... .5 3.1))...

(1978)

iilkes

,
r

979)

1

Floyd (

0h!N4I~

Ohio—In
Ohlnwln
vhaaaun
NhIOnlaq

NhlvnIO~

 

zO-m—Uua
LO ub‘O

MISSISSIPPI
warren (1979)

TEXAS

.<o .xucsoo ccxao

.¥.z .Ioauczou
Ana» )0: cc: coca:

.<J .lclo.uo 1.:
<> .u=0I:0q¢
clono~< «0 cacao

.¢> .Muznquuoa

 

20—FU—au—zafi
4<U~Fudom

uflma .an ¢uatmuua zcaoszb
.‘nfltzaou LO FU—me—Q uzk SOL P3300 FO—ukm—cv
QZO—FU‘ szzoazn >¢Ob<¢<domo m 20—bunw

(1981)

EESOH

;:
h-

(1981) Je

Caldwell

The

is: of
are based

I

e
nd

a
ts subdivisions.

date in parentheses represents the year of the most recent Judgment.

ounty or one or i

found in Attachment N—Sa,
in this table whether the suit for declaratory

sted here are derived from the complet

. c
n
o
i m
it. a»
a
S y
n m b
00
.ic. t
tn h
C1 Q.
a d u
e e o
t.1 t r
n b s b
185 .1
l m.1 .i n
9;. e
s d a e e
e u v r b
_U.Ja a
d
nYC 5a
_u r s e h
_o o e i
c t.o t t
a n n
e r r u e
h a u o m
T.1 o C o,
c d
/,e n u
7de .7.

chin-In

vhlwnnv
«eunuch
«humane
«hi—non

nnlhnln

 

Oudum uk<fi

deN .> ddMlaxacsou caugu

 

.a.: .9 fiauuuquu

 

 

.o.: .> noon
um.: .> occlcu.u «0 xuau

.u.: .> IUGI>¢

 

 

  
 
 

nan-acuom no .40

1111

MAE—k um‘U

 

 

 

.anuocoo >ocu0uu< one an Jou>ou o>auouucqculdo nod»; oz c
.ausou oloumau 05a lane chI0u com: .o~o~ .on hush coco-oo—oonn oeucnum >~udl5d0l£3l vegan uoquuoqv 05h \M
.ucnlmo: hood-uq‘uon m4

Ace-Inquona
coda 10:. no. can annuals. .U.u .xac:ou xuuoz hnuhmao .u.: .> .U.u .xucaoo nuke:

Sa

60«:Q§ .H.a calvla .J‘ .>uc:OU O~o= hfilOuin .a.: .> waczou 0-1:
10‘609 .H.a Othlv .<O .Ahucsoo Qua-h. CEO: antoln «all .> .10 Old: «0 ~40

Avenue—ooh;
:-~& and. clonal-«o animals .m: .xuczoo concouo onnuno .n.: .> vaoauuaax

QOaCOQ .H.a GhIONIC .(O .huczau leqql an|v~lo acaou cox—q)

m
m
m
m

coqcoc .n.a nhucalv .‘c rhucsoo Ill—«3 ohtvalo .u.= .>
nouhao«a ~00£UQ u::ou cox—g]
goon-enough
coua locv 00 Id: chlnalu .<O .hu::ou :cxac chlaucu .m.: .7 .co .Nucaou cox—0

Aocqccnuo no zoo—v .>.z .¢Oquc:ou
fill-«loan valoqin due» )0: v:- om:<x Chloulv .m.: .> zuquhuuu

\M unease .e.a oh-n~-n .<a .ucucato ya: ne-m~-fi .m.: .> t..a
enacov .n.a vp-aa-n <> .ueouauax «p-m~-a .u.= .> mumummuuiunnqadm
QIUEIHO .finfl NBIOGIAA IIIQIA< no Calum NhI—nlh .64. .> IUGI>I
coaccc \4.e.n «.-v~-o_ .<> .mtza-touoa «sun—(n tan-toans co .ao

ZO—¢~Umn 20—m-UHQ ZO~PU~Qw~xan OuJ—m HF<G flJh—k Hm<0
m0 uh<n J<U~E_qoa

uaan .qn :uatfloua =u=°x=9
A<~HSDJOU LO FU—zbmuo u:b zom F3300 FU—zhm~:_
mZO—PU¢ EZHIUQJH xzflh<¢<Auue m ZO—EUHm

 

 

 

)

-

v
Q
h
I
C

q
0
C
a
3

praclaarau)

denied
danlad
granted
granted
Dla-laaad (new plan
Dlunlaaod (new plan
danlad
D.J. granted (by
con-ant docroo)

DECISION
D.J. danlod

D.J.
D.J.
D.J.
D.J.
D.J.

DATE OF
DLCIbIUN
6-12-80
7—11—79
11-1-78
o-l-79
12-7-79
Pending
lZ-lb-Bu
7-30—81
6—12-81
lZ—l-fll
Pending
Pandlng
Pundlng

YI:

y):

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA)
I951

AL.

TORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS

T COUNT FUN THE

and Yuba counties, Cal.

County), TX.

County),
Carolina

TX.

IULITICAL
T

JURISDICTION
Pleaaant Grove (Jafturaon

Apache County, AZ.
warren County, MS.
Charlton County, GA.
Dallaa (Dallaa Count
Medina County, TX.
Luckhart (Caldwell Count
Port Arthur (Jefferson
Colleton County, South
Kings, Hurced, Monteray

State at as.
State of 6.0.

THROUGH DECEHMEN 11.
State at "5.

SECTION 5 DECLARA

(DISTHIC
DATE FILED
10~20-77

3-7-7“
3—29-76

0-1-70

9-5-70
12-27-79
I-RS-HO
2-6-00
3-12-80
8-6-90
10‘9-80
11—4-81
11-17-01

a
I.

I

 

.ST
”:11
0.5
v. U.8
A

)l V.
I

Bd. of
0

TI. v.

Grove

Brooka L
V.

0.5.

Tn.

(Open pr nary)
____._____.___L___..

apmruonEFnt
Pleaaant

uunly u.s.u. No. 90

0.5.
of Dalla-

 

ot Locknart v.
at Port Arthur v. 0.5

 

 

che_C
Count
of

U.S

e. v-
(A:
V-

v.
State of California v. Smith

'Uonnell v.
State of South Dakota v. U.S.

Charlton Count

Stare at Hiaelau)

State or Nisslaal)
Cannibaloneru Cou
Colleton County v. U.S.

'd
—l
h
_
F
a
n
5

Alia
cu
cu
gin

ATTACH

STATUTORY AND C
HULTI-HEMEER EL

Prior to the decision in g
55 (1980), Sec. 2 of the Voting F
role in cases charging that multi
cruninated on account of race. 1
to give it authority to sue (see.
Consol. I.S.D., 625 F.2d 547 (Str
100: (1931). and private plaintit
claims of unconstitutional discri
relied on Sec. 2 as a ground for
tricts. 1/

17 of the few appellate court opi
Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act,

Court's decision in Mobile. One
in Mobile, 571 F.2d 238, 242 n.3
Sec. 2 cIaim “was at best problen
cessful dilution claim expressly
of the others was a dilution case
207, modified and aff'd en banc.
volved relief based on an ofricia
voter rolls, conduct held to Viol
Amendment. United States v. St.
F.2d 859. 865-866 (5th Cir. 1979)
scheme involving black voters. C
part upon Sec. 2 did not discuss
in Dist. 1 v. Board of Elections,
(successful challenge by minority
election in New York City); Blac)
(lst Cir. 1977) (unsuccessful cha
electing the Boston School Commit
Baton Rouge Parish School Board.
versing the dismissal of suit at!

wards).

 

Four post-Mobile Fifth Circui!
Sec. 2 to dilution claims. Unim
625 F.zo S47 (5th Cir. 1980) cei
(United States' authority under 5
multi-member school board electox
County, 638 F.2d 1239, 1242, n.81
pending (Sec. 2 and the Fifteent)
dilution); Lodge v. Buxton, 6391
1981), prob. juris. noted sub na
3244 (U.S. Oct. 5, 1981) (Mobile
proVide a remedy for conduct thal
Amendment); Kirkse v. City og;fi
Cir. 1981) (rejecting assertion
teenth Amendment and prohibits pi
effexts of past discanination).

 

  

1835

ATTACHMENT N-l

d
7) COUNTIES COVERED BY SECTION 4(b) 0? THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
WHICH RECEIVED JUDICIAL DETERMINATIONS OF NONCOMPLIANCE
) WITH SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT 1/
AUGUST 6, 1974 - DECEMBER 31, 1981
ALABAMA
Barbour (1979) Colbert (1978)
Clarke (1981) Hale (1976)
Pike (1979)
GEORGIA
l) DeKalb (1980) Henry (1980)
1) Daugherty (1977) Peach (1973)
S) Sumter (1981)
LOUISIANA
Ascen5icn (1975) Plaquemihes (1976)
W
MISSISSIPPI
) Bolivar (1376) Grenada (1975) Leflore (l978)
379’ yaw max
Bronx (L981) Kings (1981) New York (1981)

U)
(u
r
G
.1:
n
3'
m
0
r
VI
'1.
3‘

Chester (1978) tolleton (1981) Harry £1977)

'/ The counties listed here are derived from the list of judicial findings
5f noncompliance with Section 5, Attachment N-4a, and are based on our best
available information. Sucsequent court action or variations in interpre-
tation of the bailout standard set forth under 3.3. 3112 may warrant the
elimination of some 3urisdictions iron the list or the incluSion of others.

In parentheses next to the county is the year of the most recent finding
of a failure to submit for preclearance or to comply with an objection
pursuant to Section 5 for the county itself or one of its political
subdiVi5icns.

 
   
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
    
  
 
  
   
   
 
 
  
  
 
  
   
 
  
     
   
  
  
    
  
   
 
    

JinMLNTb DY EEUENAL COUNTS UP NUNCUHPLIANCE MIT“ SECTION 5
OF 'i‘lli'l VOTING NIGHTS ACT, )llilCll ROULD UAR UAILOU’)‘ UNDER
n.R. Jill, AUUUDT 6. I978 - UECLHUEN II. 1901 :/

911 " f8 - O BSL’E6

ALABAMA

united states v. Barbour County Commission, noncompliance with 0h)eution Plaintiif 10-23-79
C.A. No. 7l—lis-N (M.D. Ala.)

 

United stateu v. Clarke county Commission, Noncoupliance with Objection Plaintiff d-l1~ll
C.A. No. 80—0547~I (8.0. Ala.)

 

Qfliisdrbtatgg v. board of Commissioners of Noncoapliance with ODJaCtion Plaintitf 3-6-1.
SheTfTETa Alabama (Colbert County). 415
is”. 11611370)

United States v. naie County Commission, A Failure to Submit Plaintiff 10-18-16
C.A. No. 76-401-9 (5.0. AIa.). aff'd, £30
“.5. 924 (l977)

 

United States v. Pike County Commission, Noncompllance with Obgection Plaintiff 10-12-79
C.A. N0. 79-245-N (H.D. Ala.)

 

NAACP, Dex-in County Chapter v. State of failure to Hubait Private
georgia (ueKaID County), ‘94 F. Supp. 668
(H.D. Ga.)

 

5
t
E
a
.2

:7 ffiia Iiat represents only the most recent Judgnenta of noncompliance for each affected county.

 

CASE TYPE
MISSISSIPPI (cont.)

natthewa v. Lafiore Count Board of Election Noncoeplianca with Objection Private
Con-Ilalonere, ISO P. upp. ".0. HI33.)

NEH YORK

nerron v. Koch (uronl. Iinga, New York failure to Obtain Preclearance
_Countlea),'5!i r. Supp. 161 (5.0. n.v.)

SOUTH CAROLINA

united States v. County Council of Cheater Nonco-plianca with objection Plaintiff
County, C.A. No. II-OBI (D. 8.C.)

United Btatea v. Board of Conniaelonera of Nonco-pliance with Objection Plaintiff
Colleton County, South Carolina, C.A. No.
79—903-8 (D. $.C.)

McCray v. Mucke (Marry County). Nonco-pliance with objection
.A.

No. II‘IC76 (D. 5.C.)
SOUTH DAKOTA

united Statca v. State of South Dakota Nonco-pliance with Objection Plaintiff
Ounly). E.a. No. 79—3039 (D. 5.0.)

TEXAS
united Staten v. Board of Trusteea of Noncolpllance with Objection Plaintiff 12-26-10
—_Soeeraet 1.6.0. (Ataecoea and Bexar

CountIea). C.A. No. SA-TD-CA—Bi (H.D. Tex.)

Gone: v. Galloway (Bee County), C.A. No. 16- Failure to Obtain Preclearance
C-Iie (6.0. Tex.)