List of jurisdictions subject to the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Last updated

States and counties encompassed by the Act's coverage formula in January 2008 (excluding bailed-out jurisdictions). Several counties subsequently bailed out, but the majority of the map accurately depicts covered jurisdictions before the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which declared the coverage formula unconstitutional. Us s5 cvr08.PNG
States and counties encompassed by the Act's coverage formula in January 2008 (excluding bailed-out jurisdictions). Several counties subsequently bailed out, but the majority of the map accurately depicts covered jurisdictions before the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which declared the coverage formula unconstitutional.

The following jurisdictions in the United States are or have been subject to the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Jurisdictions encompassed by the coverage formula contained in Section 4(b) are called "covered jurisdictions"; covered jurisdictions are subject to preclearance under Section 5. Covered jurisdictions may "bail out" of coverage, while non-covered jurisdictions may be "bailed in" to coverage. The Act's bilingual assistance provision is independent of the other special provisions, and jurisdictions encompassed by this provision are listed separately.

Contents

Coverage formula

The coverage formula, contained in Section 4(b) of the Act, determines which states are subject to preclearance. As enacted in 1965, the first element in the formula was whether, on November 1, 1964, the state or a political subdivision of the state maintained a "test or device" restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The Act's definition of a "test or device" included such requirements as the applicant being able to pass a literacy test, establish that he or she had good moral character, or have another registered voter vouch for his or her qualifications. The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964. In 1970, Congress recognized the continuing need for the special provisions of the Act, which were due to expire that year, and renewed them for another five years. It added a second prong to the coverage formula, identical to the original formula except that it referenced November 1968 as the relevant date for the maintenance of a test or device and the levels of voter registration and electoral participation. In 1975, the Act's special provisions were extended for another seven years, and were broadened to address voting discrimination against members of "language minority groups," which were defined as persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage." As before, Congress expanded the coverage formula, based on the presence of tests or devices and levels of voter registration and participation as of November 1972. In addition, the 1965 definition of "test or device" was expanded to include the practice of providing any election information, including ballots, only in English in states or political subdivisions where members of a single language minority constituted more than five percent of the citizens of voting age. In 1982, the coverage formula was extended again, this time for 25 years, but no changes were made to it. In 2006, the coverage formula was again extended for 25 years. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the coverage formula as unconstitutional, meaning that no jurisdiction is currently subject to preclearance under the coverage formula.

Jurisdictions encompassed by coverage formula

All counties and municipalities within a covered state are covered unless they have bailed out; counties and municipalities covered by virtue of being within a covered state are not included in this list. The following jurisdictions were encompassed by the coverage formula before the Supreme Court announced its decision. [2] [3]

1965

The following jurisdictions were brought into coverage under the original coverage formula contained within the unrevised Voting Rights Act of 1965:[ citation needed ]

1970

The following additional jurisdictions became subject to preclearance after the coverage formula was amended in 1970:[ citation needed ]

1975

The following additional jurisdictions became subject to preclearance after the coverage formula was amended in 1975:[ citation needed ]

Jurisdictions bailed out of coverage

Covered jurisdictions may have their coverage terminated by succeeding in a "bail out" action in court. Effective August 5, 1984, the bail out provision was liberalized, allowing more jurisdictions to bail out of coverage. The following jurisdictions have bailed out of coverage: [4] [5]

Before August 1984

After August 1984

Jurisdictions bailed into coverage

Courts may "bail in" non-covered jurisdictions and require them to submit some or all of their voting changes for preclearance. The preclearance requirements for these "bailed in" jurisdictions were unaffected by the Supreme Court's ruling in Shelby County v. Holder. The following jurisdictions have been bailed into coverage under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act: [5] [54]

Jurisdictions encompassed by the Section 203 bilingual elections requirement

The following jurisdictions are subject to the Section 203 bilingual elections requirement: [73]

Alaska

Arizona

California

In addition to the jurisdictions enumerated below, California has state coverage for the Hispanic Language Minority Group. [74]

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

In addition to the jurisdictions enumerated below, Florida has state coverage for the Hispanic Language Minority Group.

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Iowa

Kansas

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Mississippi

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Texas

In addition to the jurisdictions enumerated below, Texas has state coverage for the Hispanic Language Minority Group.

Utah

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voting Rights Act of 1965</span> US federal legislation that prohibits racial discrimination in voting

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections. Designed to enforce the voting rights protected by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of federal civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country. It is also "one of the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history." The National Archives and Records Administration stated: "The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the most significant statutory change in the relationship between the federal and state governments in the area of voting since the Reconstruction period following the Civil War".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Languages of the United States</span> Overview of the languages spoken in the United States

The United States does not have an official language at the federal level, but the most commonly used language is English, which is the de facto national language. In addition, 32 U.S. states out of 50 and all five U.S. territories have declared English as an official language. It is also the language spoken at home by the great majority of the U.S. population. Many other languages are also spoken at home, especially Spanish, according to the American Community Survey (ACS) of the U.S. Census Bureau; others include indigenous languages originally spoken by Native Americans, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and native populations in the U.S. unincorporated territories. Other languages were brought in by people from Europe, Africa, Asia, other parts of the Americas, and Oceania, including multiple dialects, creole languages, pidgin languages, and sign languages originating in what is now the United States. Interlingua, an international auxiliary language, was also created in the U.S.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Historical regions of the United States</span>

The territory of the United States and its overseas possessions has evolved over time, from the colonial era to the present day. It includes formally organized territories, proposed and failed states, unrecognized breakaway states, international and interstate purchases, cessions, and land grants, and historical military departments and administrative districts. The last section lists informal regions from American vernacular geography known by popular nicknames and linked by geographical, cultural, or economic similarities, some of which are still in use today.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Classification of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas</span>

The classification of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas is based upon cultural regions, geography, and linguistics. Anthropologists have named various cultural regions, with fluid boundaries, that are generally agreed upon with some variation. These cultural regions are broadly based upon the locations of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas from early European and African contact beginning in the late 15th century. When Indigenous peoples have been forcibly removed by nation-states, they retain their original geographic classification. Some groups span multiple cultural regions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands</span> Indigenous groups in the US

Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands, Southeastern cultures, or Southeast Indians are an ethnographic classification for Native Americans who have traditionally inhabited the area now part of the Southeastern United States and the northeastern border of Mexico, that share common cultural traits. This classification is a part of the Eastern Woodlands. The concept of a southeastern cultural region was developed by anthropologists, beginning with Otis Mason and Franz Boas in 1887. The boundaries of the region are defined more by shared cultural traits than by geographic distinctions. Because the cultures gradually instead of abruptly shift into Plains, Prairie, or Northeastern Woodlands cultures, scholars do not always agree on the exact limits of the Southeastern Woodland culture region. Shawnee, Powhatan, Waco, Tawakoni, Tonkawa, Karankawa, Quapaw, and Mosopelea are usually seen as marginally southeastern and their traditional lands represent the borders of the cultural region.

The following is a set–index article, providing a list of lists, for the cities, towns and villages within the jurisdictional United States. It is divided, alphabetically, according to the state, territory, or district name in which they are located.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States</span> History of Hispanics & Latinx in U.S.

The history of Hispanics and Latinos in the United States is wide-ranging, spanning more than four hundred years of American colonial and post-colonial history. Hispanics became the first American citizens in the newly acquired Southwest territory after the Mexican–American War, and remained a majority in several states until the 20th century.

The Cherokee have participated in over forty treaties in the past three hundred years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bureau of Indian Education</span> United States government agency

The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), headquartered in the Main Interior Building in Washington, D.C., and formerly known as the Office of Indian Education Programs (OIEP), is a division of the U.S. Department of the Interior under the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. It is responsible for the line direction and management of all BIE education functions, including the formation of policies and procedures, the supervision of all program activities, and the approval of the expenditure of funds appropriated for BIE education functions.

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subject to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting.

Living Legends, originally the Lamanite Generation, is a song and dance performing group at Brigham Young University made up of performers of Native American, Polynesian and Hispanic or Latino origin. They perform dances that originate in these cultures as well. Living Legends was formed in 1971 by Janie Thompson.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965</span> Amendments to U.S. legislation

The U.S. Congress enacted major amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, and 2006. Each of these amendments coincided with an impending expiration of some of the Act's special provisions, which originally were set to expire by 1970. However, in recognition of the voting discrimination that continued despite the Act, Congress repeatedly amended the Act to reauthorize the special provisions.

References

PD-icon.svg This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain : [5]

  1. PD-icon.svg One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain : "Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act". U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved June 25, 2013.
  2. "Section 5 Covered Jurisdictions". U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved 8 December 2013.
  3. 28 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51 Appendix Archived 2013-12-11 at the Wayback Machine
  4. "Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act: Jurisdictions Currently Bailed Out". U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved 8 December 2013.
  5. 1 2 3 "Brief for the Federal Respondent, Shelby County v. Holder, 2013 United States Supreme Court Briefs No. 12-96" (PDF). Appendices A & B: U.S. Department of Justice. pp. 99–108. Retrieved 8 December 2013.
  6. Wake Cnty. v. United States, No. 1198-66 (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 1967)
  7. New Mexico v. United States, No. 76-0067 (D.D.C. July 30, 1976)
  8. Maine v. United States, No. 75-2125 (D.D.C. Sept. 17, 1976)
  9. Choctaw and McCurtain Cntys. v. United States, No. 76-1250 (D.D.C. May 12, 1978)
  10. Campbell Cnty. v. United States, No. 82-1862 (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 1982)
  11. Massachusetts v. United States, No. 83-0945 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 1983)
  12. Connecticut v. United States, No. 83-3103 (D.D.C. June 21, 1984)
  13. Board of Cnty. Comm'rs v. United States, No. 84-1626 (D. [101] D.C. July 30, 1984)
  14. Waihee v. United, States, No. 84-1694 (D.D.C. July 31, 1984)
  15. Idaho v. United States, No. 82-1778 (D.D.C. July 31, 1984)
  16. City of Fairfax v. Reno, No. 97-2212 (D.D.C. Oct. 21, 1997)
  17. Frederick Cnty. v. Reno, No. 99-941 (D.D.C. Sept. 10, 1999)
  18. Shenandoah Cnty. v. Reno, No. 99-992 (D.D.C. Oct. 15, 1999)
  19. Roanoke Cnty. v. Reno, No. 00-1949 (D.D.C. Jan. 24, 2001)
  20. City of Winchester v. Reno, No. 00-3073 (D.D.C. June 1, 2001)
  21. City of Harrisonburg v. Reno, No. 02-289 (D.D.C. Apr. 17, 2002)
  22. Rockingham Cnty. v. Reno, No. 02-391 (D.D.C. May 24, 2002)
  23. Warren Cnty. v. Ashcroft, No. 02-1736 (D.D.C. Nov. 26, 2002)
  24. Greene Cnty. v. Ashcroft, No. 03-1877 (D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2004)
  25. Pulaski Cnty. v. Gonzales, No. 05-1265 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2005)
  26. Augusta Cnty. v. Gonzales, No. 05-1885 (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 2005)
  27. City of Salem v. Gonzales, No. 06-977 (D.D.C. July 27, 2006)
  28. Botetourt Cnty. v. Gonzales, No. 06-1052 (D.D.C. Aug. 28, 2006)
  29. Essex Cnty. v. Gonzales, No. 06-1631 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2007)
  30. Middlesex Cnty. v. Gonzales, No. 07-1485 (D.D.C. Jan. 7, 2008)
  31. Amherst Cnty. v. Mukasey, No. 08-780 (D.D.C. Aug. 13, 2008)
  32. Page Cnty. v. Mukasey, No. 08-1113 (D.D.C. Sept. 15, 2008)
  33. Washington Cnty. v. Mukasey, No. 08-1112 (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2008)
  34. Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist No. One v. Mukasey, No. 06-1384 (D.D.C. Nov. 3, 2009)
  35. City of Kings Mountain v. Holder, 746 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. Oct. 22, 2010)
  36. City of Sandy Springs v. Holder, No. 10-1502 (D.D.C. Oct. 26, 2010)
  37. Jefferson Cnty. Drainage Dist No. Seven v. Holder, No. 11-461 (D.D.C. June 6, 2011)
  38. Alta Irrigation Dist. v. Holder, No. 11-758 (D.D.C. July 15, 2011)
  39. City of Manassas Park v. Holder, C.A. No. 11-749 (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2011)
  40. Rappahannock Cnty. v. Holder, C.A. No. 11-1123 (D.D.C. Aug. 9, 2011)
  41. Bedford Cnty. v. Holder, No. 11-499 (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2011)
  42. City of Bedford v. Holder, No. 11-473 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2011)
  43. Culpeper Cnty. v. Holder, No. 11-1477 (D.D.C. Oct. 3, 2011)
  44. James City Cnty. v. Holder, No. 11-1425 (D.D.C. Nov. 9, 2011)
  45. City of Williamsburg v. Holder, No. 11-1415 (D.D.C. Nov. 28, 2011)
  46. King George Cnty. v. Holder, No. 11-2164 (D.D.C. April 5, 2012)
  47. Prince William Cnty. v. Holder, No. 12-14 (D.D.C. April 10, 2012)
  48. City of Pinson v. Holder, No. 12-255 (D.D.C. April 20, 2012)
  49. Wythe Cnty. v. Holder, No. 12-719 (D.D.C. June 18, 2012)
  50. Grayson Cnty. v. Holder, No. 12-718 (D.D.C, July 20, 2012)
  51. Merced Cnty. v. Holder, No. 12-354 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2012)
  52. Craig Cnty. v. Holder, No. 12-1179 (D.D.C. Nov. 29, 2012)
  53. Carroll Cnty. v. Holder, No. 12-1166 (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 2012)
  54. Crum, Travis (2010). "The Voting Rights Act's Secret Weapon: Pocket Trigger Litigation and Dynamic Preclearance". The Yale Law Journal. 119. Archived from the original on 30 August 2013. Retrieved 27 August 2013.
  55. United States v. Thurston Cnty., C.A. No. 78-0-380 (D. Neb. May 9, 1979)
  56. McMillan v. Escambia Cnty., C.A. No. 77-0432 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 1979)
  57. Woodring v. Clarke, C.A. No. 80-4569 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 1983)
  58. N.A.A.C.P. v. Gadsden City Sch. Bd., 589 F. Supp. 953 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 6, 1984)
  59. Sanchez v. Anaya, C.A. No. 82-0067M (D.N.M. Dec. 17, 1984)
  60. United States v. McKinley Cnty., No. 86-0029-C (D.N.M. Jan. 13, 1986)
  61. United States v. Sandoval Cnty., C.A. No. 88-1457-SC (D.N.M. May 17, 1990)
  62. Brown v. Board of Comm'rs of City of Chattanooga, No. CIV-1-87-388 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 18, 1990)
  63. Cuthair v. Montezuma-Cortez Sch. Dist. No. RE-1, No. 89-C-964 (D. Col. Apr. 8, 1990
  64. Jeffers v. Clinton, 740 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Ark. May 16, 1990), appeal dismissed, 498 U.S. 1129 (1991)
  65. Garza & United States v. Los Angeles Cnty., C.A. Nos. CV 88-5143 KN (Ex) and CV 88-5435 KN (Ex) (CD. Cal. Apr. 26, 1991)
  66. United States v. Cibola Cnty., C.A. No. 93-1134-LH/LFG (D.N.M. Apr. 21, 1994)
  67. United States v. Socorro Cnty., C.A. No. 93-1244-JP (D.N.M. Apr. 11, 1994)
  68. United States v. Alameda Cnty., C.A. No. C 95-1266 (SAW) (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 1996)
  69. United States v. Bernalillo Cnty., C.A. No. 93-156-BB/LCS (D.N.M. Apr. 22, 1998)
  70. Kirke v. Buffalo Cnty., C.A. No. 03-CV-3011 (D.S.D. Feb. 10, 2004)
  71. Blackmoon v. Charles Mix Cnty., C.A. No. 05-CV-4017 (D.S.D. Dec. 4, 2007)
  72. United States v. Village of Port Chester, C.A. No. 06-CV-15173 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006)
  73. PD-icon.svg One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain : "Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act: Covered Areas for Voting Rights Bilingual Election Materials" (PDF). United States Census Bureau. Retrieved May 11, 2020.
  74. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 "Covered Areas for Voting Rights Bilingual Election Materials—2015", Voting Rights Act Amendments of 2006, Determinations Under Section 203, Federal Register , retrieved October 13, 2020, A Notice by the Census Bureau on 12/05/2016