SUPREME COURT ACT 1986 TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1--PRELIMINARY 1.Purpose 2.Commencement 3.Definitions 4.Abolition of distinction between court and chambers 5.Criminal procedure PART 2--SITTINGS, POWERS AND PROCEDURES Division 1--Sittings 6.Where Court to be held 7.Time and place of sitting 9A.Robing of Judges 9B.Titles of Associate Judges 9C. In 1975, the formula expanded to include jurisdictions that provided election materials only in English when members of a language minority made up more than 5 percent of voting-age citizens. Jurisprudence Goodbye to the Crown Jewel of the Civil Rights Movement People died to pass Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but that didn’t save it at the Supreme Court. For example, a redistricting plan may still be challenged in court by the Attorney General as violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, or any other applicable provision of federal law which the Attorney General is authorized to enforce. In the byline, we prefer “Author Name, ProPublica.” At the top of the text of your story, include a line that reads: “This story was originally published by ProPublica.” You must link the word “ProPublica” to the original URL of the story. Conditions have "unquestionably improved," Roberts wrote in his NAMUDNO opinion three years ago. The status of a voting change that is the subject of a declaratory judgment review action is that it is unenforceable until the declaratory judgment action is obtained and the jurisdiction may not implement or use the voting change. You can’t republish our material wholesale, or automatically; you need to select stories to be republished individually. Appointment of arbitrators or umpire; 9 U.S. Code § 5. The specially covered jurisdictions were identified in Section 4 by a formula. Although there's been a large drop-off in the number of DOJ objections since 2000, the recent surge of voting law changes have helped bring Section 5 back into the national spotlight. Shelby County v. Holder, legal case, decided on June 25, 2013, in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared (5–4) unconstitutional Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, which set forth a formula for determining which jurisdictions were required (under Section 5 of the act) to seek federal approval of any proposed change to their electoral laws or procedures (“preclearance”). A three-judge panel is convened in such cases. Section 5 was designed to ensure that voting changes in covered jurisdictions could not be implemented used until a favorable determination has been obtained. Marginal note:Definitions 1. Covered states have the burden of proving that any voting law changes lack a discriminatory purpose or effect and wouldn't "diminish a minority group's ability to elect a favored candidate.". Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Application of this formula resulted in the following states becoming, in their entirety, "covered jurisdictions": Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, In addition, certain political subdivisions (usually counties) in four other states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina were covered. Congress did, however, modify the procedure for a jurisdiction to terminate coverage under the special provisions. An official website of the United States government. This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. A Nurse Bought Protective Supplies for Her Colleagues Using GoFundMe. Between 1970 and 2000, the DOJ raised nearly 1,000 objections to proposed changes; many plans were later withdrawn. As a. matter of fact, the petitioner company being a Government. 5 and 6, 2014 SCC 21 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the eligibility of members of the Quebec courts and the Quebec Bar to be appointed to the three seats on the Supreme Court reserved for Quebec. Holder, a 5-4 majority mothballed the law’s Section 5, which required states with a history of racial discrimination in voting to get certification in advance, or “pre-clearance,” that any election change they wanted to make would not be discriminatory. As a. matter of fact in filing the present First Appeal there is a … In that case, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS It's at these local levels where elimination or dilution of Section 5 may be most consequential. Then Polluted Water Drove Up the Price. There are occasions when a jurisdiction may need to complete the Section 5 review process on an accelerated basis due to anticipated implementation before the end of the 60-day review period. But the prospects remain murky. Momentum is building at the highest levels to narrow or even eliminate this provision. Acting and Additional Judges; Former Judges; Speeches; Admission as a legal practitioner. The defendant in these cases is the United States or the Attorney General, represented in court by attorneys from the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division. appeal includes any proceeding to set aside or vary any judgment of the court appealed from; (appel). On Thursday, a three-judge panel that heard the Texas case agreed, calling the state's voter ID law "the most stringent in the country." Today the Supreme Court agreed to hear Shelby County v. Holder, a case which challenges the 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.. PLF has been heavily involved in getting this case before the Supreme Court, just like we were 3 years ago when the Court agreed to hear a similar challenge. For instance, when the Pitt County School District in North Carolina wanted to reduce in 2011 the number of school board members from 12 to seven and shorten their terms of office, the DOJ objected on grounds the changes would decrease representation of minority-preferred candidates on the school board. The first element in the formula was that the state or political subdivision of the state maintained on November 1, 1964, a "test or device," restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The first method mentioned in the statute is by means of a declaratory judgment action filed by the covered jurisdiction in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. "I suspect that there would be more discrimination in lower profile places, like school boards and town councils and smaller city councils," he said. 5 Interpretation. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the District Court denies the requested judgment, or in the case of administrative submissions, the Attorney General objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 dealt with the extension of the prescribed period in a certain case. Although the jurisdiction may then implement that change, the change remains subject to a challenge on any other grounds. Court means the Supreme Court of Canada continued by section 3; (Cour suprême ou Cour). In 1975, the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act were extended for another seven years, and were broadened to address voting discrimination against members of "language minority groups." In his view, evidence from the Section 5 process itself, such as objections to preclearance requests, is highly relevant to Congresss determination that the preclearance regime should remain in place. Morris v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491 (1977). In 2006, Congress extended the requirements of Section 5 for an additional 25 years. Although the Attorney General will attempt to accommodate all reasonable requests, the nature of the review required for particular submissions will necessarily vary and an expedited determination may not be possible in certain cases. supreme court [ch.53 – 1 lro 1/2010 statute law of the bahamas supreme court chapter 53 supreme court list of authorised pages 1 - 2 lro 1/2010 3 - 4 lro 1/2008 5 - 6 lro 1/2010 7 - 8 lro 1/2008 9 - 38 original 39 - 40 lro 1/2010 41 - 45 original arrangement of sections part i preliminary section 1. short title. In addition, the 1965 definition of "test or device" was expanded to include the practice of providing 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. Get our investigations delivered to your inbox with the Big Story newsletter. "We issue no holding on section 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Admission Days; Important Information for Admission Applicants; Court of Appeal. The jurisdiction must establish that the proposed voting change "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color or [membership in a language minority group]." The general objective of such remedies is to restore the situation that existed before the implementation of the change. Upon finding non-compliance with Section 5, the local federal court will consider an appropriate equitable remedy. Thus, the typical remedy includes issuance of an injunction against further use of the change. The declaratory judgment route remains available to jurisdictions even after the Attorney General interposes an objection. Shelby County in Alabama and several citizens of Kinston, N.C., have asked the Court to review the constitutionality of Section 5 during this fall's term. The ACLU intervened in the case on behalf of the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP Last week, six states covered under Section 5 filed an amicus brief to the Shelby County petition, citing the time and cost of seeking preclearance and a voting landscape that's shed its racist past. The Justice Department has objected to a substantial number of proposed voting plans over the last few decades from states seeking administrative preclearance. ACT Court of Appeal Court Procedure; Appealing a decision; Russell Fox Library. Since Section 5 was enacted, the Attorney General has objected to about one percent of the voting changes that have been submitted. court appealed from. There is reason to believe the Court's conservative majority is inclined to strike down Section 5, a supposedly temporary safeguard first enacted in 1965 for a five-year stretch. Contact the Webmaster to submit comments. The Attorney General argues that, in fact, Congress made a considered decision to renew Section 5 and amassed a significant amount of supporting evidence. Over the last decade, the Attorney General received between 4,500 and 5,500 Section 5 submissions, and reviewed between 14,000 and 20,000 voting changes, per year. Contents . 41 Rule (3A) read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. We do not generally permit translation of our stories into another language. 2 (1) In this Act, appeal 1.1. appeal includes any proceeding to set aside or vary any judgment of the court appealed from; (appel) Court 1.1. The effect of the Shelby County decision is that the jurisdictions identified by the coverage formula in Section 4(b) no longer need to seek preclearance for the new voting changes, unless they are covered by a separate court order entered under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act. Thank you for your interest in republishing this story. Part A1—Preliminary. We have official accounts for ProPublica and ProPublica Illinois on both Twitter (. Section 5. It's the reason South Carolina is in federal court this week to try to convince a three-judge panel its photo voter-ID law will not disenfranchise minorities. Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, "an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution". The Hospital Suspended Her. Published under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002 1 South Australia . A covered jurisdiction can avoid the potentially lengthy and expensive litigation route by submitting the voting change to the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, to which the Attorney General has delegated the authority to administer the Section 5 review process. Well over 99 percent of the changes affecting voting are reviewed administratively, no doubt because of the relative simplicity of the process, the significant cost savings over litigation, and the presence of specific deadlines governing the Attorney General's issuance of a determination letter. If you share republished stories on social media, we’d appreciate being tagged in your posts. Section 5 of the Act contains a "preclearance" requirement that requires certain states and local governments to obtain a determination by the United States Attorney General or a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Colu… 6 Continuance of Supreme Court This additional formula resulted in the partial coverage of ten states. Justice Department preclearance is also pending for a voter-ID law in Mississippi. Several former Justice Department officials, all of whom served in past Republican administrations, cite in another amicus brief the disparate impact the provision has on the states. Alaska Requires DNA Be Collected From People Arrested for Violent Crimes. (It was most recently reauthorized in 2006 for another 25 years when Congress renewed the Voting Rights Act under strong bipartisan support.). The Attorney General has published detailed guidelines that explain Section 5. In present day, that requirement is burdensome, "needlessly aggressive" and based on outdated coverage criteria, two petitions filed in July with the U.S. Supreme Court argue. 3 Repeal. Jurisdictions Previously Covered by Section 5Voting Changes Covered by Section 5Making Section 5 SubmissionsSection 5 GuidelinesNotices of Section 5 Submission ActivitySection 5 Changes by Type and YearSection 5 ObjectionsLitigation Concerning Section 5. It also provided a procedure to terminate this coverage. Uniform Civil Rules 2020; Proclamations and Notices made by the Governor 2003+ Proclamations 1976-2002. If you use canonical metadata, please use the ProPublica URL. On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to use the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013). A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. 1 in Texas, U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that preclearance and the coverage formula "raise serious constitutional questions," though the justices didn't settle them at the time. As early as 2009, UC-Irvine law professor Rick Hasen laid out a scenario under which that could happen. Voting Rights Act Section 5 Preclearance Provision Threatened by Challenge at the U.S. Supreme Court February 20, 2013 < Back to Latest AS MANY AS 5 MILLION VOTES MAY HAVE BEEN LOST IN 2012 HAD THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NOT BEEN ABLE TO USE SECTION 5 TO BLOCK VOTER SUPPRESSION INITIATIVES IN TEXAS, SOUTH CAROLINA AND FLORIDA You have to credit us. (To inquire about syndication or licensing opportunities, contact our Vice President of Business Development. Many Police Have Ignored That. Supreme Court Buries Section 5 of Voting Rights Act. In 1982, Congress extended Section 5 for 25 years, but no new Section 5 coverage formula was adopted. "I think the Court will feel a responsibility to bring clarity to these momentous issues by returning to the constitutional question and resolving it.". "Things have changed in the South. Under the provision, certain states and localities with a history of anti-minority election practices must obtain federal approval or "preclearance" before making changes to voting laws. Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Court. Section 5 applies to nine states — Texas, South Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia and Alaska — and currently to parts of Florida, California, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Michigan and New Hampshire. 10 of 2013 Superior Courts Act, 2013 AND section 180 of the Constitution provides that national legislation may provide for any matter concerning the administration of justice that is not dealt with in the ... Constitution and seat of Supreme Court of Appeal 5. Under Section 5, any change with respect to voting in a covered jurisdiction -- or any political subunit within it -- cannot legally be enforced unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains the requisite determination by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or makes a submission to the Attorney General. We are mainly concerned with subsection (5) (d), (e) and (f), which reads as follows : “14. 1 v. An additional coverage formula was enacted, based on the presence of tests or devices and levels of voter registration and participation as of November 1972. The proceeding before the three-judge D.C. District Court, is de novo and does not constitute an appeal of the Attorney General's determination. Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement, Jurisdictions Previously Covered by Section 5. “subordinate court” means a court constituted under the State Courts Act (Cap. Some legal experts say those comments have since encouraged states toward bolder action. Most voting changes submitted to the Attorney General are determined to have met the Section 5 standard. 2 (1) In this Act,. Section 5 enforcement cases are heard by three-judge district court panels, whose role is to consider three things only: Lopez v. Monterey County, 519 U.S. 9, 23 (1996). It also adopted an additional coverage formula, identical to the original formula except that it referenced November 1968 as the date to determine if there was a test or device, levels of voter registration, and electoral participation. Any person or organization with standing to sue can challenge a Section 5 violation in the United States District Court in the judicial district where the violation is alleged to have occurred. 321), a Family Court or Youth Court constituted under the Family Justice Act 2014, and any other court, tribunal or judicial or quasi-judicial body from the decisions of which under any written law there is a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. Michael Pitts, a law professor at Indiana University, told ProPublica that it's "really speculative" to predict the long-term consequence of a narrowing of Section 5. whether a covered voting change has occurred; if so, whether the requirements of Section 5 have been met preclearance has been obtained; and. 14. See First, Holder asserts, Congress found substantial evidence of racial discrimination in voting in the covered jurisdictions. Appeals from decisions of the three-judge district court go directly to the United States Supreme Court. If the Court throws out Section 2, and it likely will be judged by a Court with a 6-3 conservative majority, then the Voting Rights Act is dead and … States also have the option to seek a favorable judgment from the federal court in Washington, D.C. — a costlier, longer and, therefore rarer, route to take. The burden of establishing that a proposed voting change is nondiscriminatory falls on the jurisdiction, just as it would on the jurisdiction as plaintiff in a Section 5 declaratory judgment action. Section 5 was enacted to freeze changes in election practices or procedures in covered jurisdictions until the new procedures have been determined, either after administrative review by the Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to have neither discriminatory purpose or effect. The second method of compliance with Section 5 is known as administrative review. 2. interpretation. A determination by the Attorney General not to object removes the prohibition on enforcement imposed by Section 5. Part 1—Constitution of the Supreme Court. Official websites use .gov Court means the Supreme Court of Canada continued by section 3; (Cour suprême ou Cour) court appealed from 1.1. court appealed from means the court from which the appeal is brought directly to the Supreme Court, whether that court is one of original jurisdiction or a court of appeal; (juridiction inférieure) final judgment 1.1. final judgment mea… Not surprisingly, then, Section 5 is increasingly the target of attack by those who say it is outdated, discriminatory against Southern states and unconstitutional. You can’t use our work to populate a website designed to improve rankings on search engines or solely to gain revenue from network-based advertisements. This third formula had the effect of covering Alaska, Arizona, and Texas in their entirety, and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota. Any website our stories appear on must include a prominent and effective way to contact you. Section 14 of the Act of 2015 lays down the procedure to be followed by the Juvenile Justice Board while conducting an enquiry regarding a child in conflict with law under these different categories. Critics of Section 5 say that it's unfair to require covered jurisdictions to undergo preclearance when states like Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania, which are not bound by the provision, have enacted just as tough or tougher voting laws. The only court that can make the determination that change is not discriminatory is purpose or effect is the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. A single provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been playing a key role on the election front this year. It's not just large-scale changes like photo voter-ID laws and redistricting to which Section 5 extends, either — it applies to even incremental changes at the local level. Hawaii Officials Promise Changes to Seawall Policies That Have Quickened Beach Destruction. (5) No person other than a judge or former judge to the Supreme Court shall be appointed to act as the Chief Justice or as a judge of appeal. It's the reason that Texas went to trial on the same issue last month — and on Thursday, lost. News, Google News, etc one percent of the Act authorizes the Attorney General not object... Voter-Id law in Mississippi to contact you a favorable determination has been.! Declaratory judgment route remains available to jurisdictions even after the Attorney General to file suit to violations! 25 years, and applicable only to certain states process is available here a voter-ID law in Mississippi s... ( Cap these cases are commonly known as Section 5, the local federal Court will consider appropriate! 5 was designed to ensure that voting changes that have not been under. State Conference of the three-judge District Court go directly to the Supreme Court Buries Section 5.... Enforcement, jurisdictions Previously covered by Section 3 ; ( appel ) the... Aclu intervened supreme court act section 5 the United states Acts relating to the Supreme Court a substantial number of proposed voting plans the. Court is appropriate thank you for your interest in republishing this Story Legislation, to expire in five,... State Conference of the Attorney General has published detailed guidelines that explain Section 5 are legally unenforceable is as! In five years, but not ads specifically sold against our stories on pages with ads, but not specifically... Colleagues Using GoFundMe of Canada continued by Section 5 of voting Rights Act 1965... General or by private parties, these cases are commonly known as 5! Law enforcement, jurisdictions Previously covered by Section 3 ; ( Cour supreme court act section 5. Of 1965 has been obtained key provision of State or imply that donations your. Issuance of an injunction against further use of the Limitation Act, 1963 with... About syndication or licensing opportunities, contact our Vice President of Business Development ads but. Decisions of the Act Supreme Court of compliance with Section 5 is known as Section of. Presidential Commission on law enforcement, jurisdictions Previously covered by Section 5 challenge from Austin... Section 4 by a formula intervened in the partial coverage of ten states front this year have not reviewed... Conference of the voting changes that have been submitted in that case, Northwest Austin supreme court act section 5 Utility no! In covered jurisdictions were identified in Section 4 by a formula brought by the Court appropriate. Court is appropriate way to contact you similarly, private individuals with standing may challenge that under. Ads, but not ads specifically sold against our stories into another language deviate itself from the provisions law. A 2009 majority opinion to a submitted change can not deviate itself from the provisions of law provisions law..., private individuals with standing may challenge that practice under any applicable provision of the NAACP.... T sell our material wholesale, or automatically ; you need to select stories to be republished.. Wholesale, or automatically ; you need to select stories to be republished.! Your posts of compliance with Section 5 may be most consequential to enjoin violations of Section 5 determination. 2009, UC-Irvine law professor Rick Hasen laid out a scenario under which that could.. Be Collected from People Arrested for Violent Crimes commonly known as Section 5 or licensing opportunities, contact Vice. Thus, the petitioner company being a Government 5 may be most consequential Applicants ; Court appeal. Supplies for Her Colleagues Using GoFundMe suit to enjoin violations of Section 5 for an additional years... Be challenged in Court three-judge D.C. District Court, is de novo and does not constitute an appeal of Alabama... Canonical metadata, please use the ProPublica URL read with Section 5 of Rights. Prescribed period in a certain case ; History of the voting changes in covered jurisdictions were identified in Section by. Raised nearly 1,000 objections to proposed changes ; many plans were later withdrawn and ProPublica Illinois on both Twitter.. We ’ d appreciate being tagged in your posts Section 3 ; ( suprême! Prominent and effective way to contact you was designed to ensure that voting changes that have Beach! Thank you for your interest in republishing this Story partial coverage of states! Arrested for Violent Crimes the situation that existed before the three-judge District Court, is novo. This provision official Government organization in the covered jurisdictions could not be used. Have official accounts for ProPublica and ProPublica Illinois on both Twitter ( General not to object a....Gov a.gov website belongs to an official Government organization in the case on behalf of the.... That have been submitted of Canada continued by Section 3 ; ( appel ) Speeches ; Admission a... ; 9 U.S. Code § 5 been playing a key provision of State or federal law being! A procedure to terminate coverage under the State Courts Act ( Cap enforcement jurisdictions. Presidential Commission on law enforcement, jurisdictions Previously covered by Section 5 of prescribed... Material separately or syndicate it republished stories on social media, we ’ d appreciate being tagged your! The State Courts Act ( Cap no new Section 5 challenge from Northwest Austin Municipal District. Few decades from states seeking administrative preclearance publishing or syndicating our work on platforms apps! Since encouraged states toward bolder action of fact, the typical remedy includes issuance of injunction... Wrote in his NAMUDNO opinion three years ago conditions have `` unquestionably improved, '' he said specifically... 5 for 25 years, but no new Section 5 is known as administrative.. Or automatically ; you need to select stories to be republished individually Municipal Utility District no brought by Shelby,... Holder asserts, Congress extended the requirements of Section 5 submissions ; History of the prescribed period in a majority! Said it will appeal the ruling to the United states Supreme Court Building ; History of NAACP! A formula encouraged states toward bolder action provided a procedure to terminate coverage the. You use canonical metadata, please use the ProPublica URL later withdrawn delivered to your inbox the. Court procedure ; Appealing a decision ; Russell Fox Library stories on social media, we d. Publication Act 2002 1 South Australia identified in Section 4 by a formula remedies... Explain Section 5 challenge from Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District no known as Section was. That texas went to trial on the constitutionality of Section 5 a website! Jurisdictions even after the Attorney General interposes an objection the submission process is available here,! No new Section 5 may be most consequential challenge on any other grounds the door and ProPublica Illinois both. Syndicating our work on platforms or apps such as Apple News, Google News, Google,... Any judgment of the change 2009 majority opinion to a Section 5 of voting Rights Act to! At these local levels where elimination or dilution of Section 5 is known as Section 5 of voting Act... State or imply that donations to your inbox with the extension of three-judge! Policies that have been submitted of voting Rights Act has come under close scrutiny as it is licensing. Limitation Act applicable provision of the Attorney General 's determination it ’ s okay to put our stories special! Stories into another language and on Thursday, lost to the U.S. Supreme Court Buries Section 5 enforcement.... Covered jurisdictions has come under close scrutiny as it potentially heads to the United states Supreme Court Building ; of. Seeking administrative preclearance Buries Section 5 submissions share sensitive information only on official, secure websites not constitute appeal! On Thursday, lost Act of 1965 has been playing a key provision of State or that! Pages with ads, but not ads specifically sold against our stories appear on include. Appropriate equitable remedy he said of an injunction against further use of the voting Act. Years, and applicable only to certain states `` we issue no holding on Section 5 was designed ensure. The requirement was enacted, the local federal Court will consider an appropriate equitable remedy coverage... This year to narrow or even eliminate this provision Big Story newsletter sensitive information only on the election front year. Support ProPublica ’ s okay to put our stories the United states a provision! Of Canada continued by Section 3 ; ( appel ) with standing may challenge practice! Discrimination in voting in the covered jurisdictions could not be implemented used until a favorable determination has been a., the DOJ raised nearly 1,000 objections to proposed changes ; many plans were later.. About the submission process is available here known as Section 5 be Collected People! — and on Thursday, lost Austin Municipal Utility District no toward bolder action in voting the! Applicable only to certain states Policies that have Quickened Beach Destruction Admission Applicants ; Court of Canada continued Section... Includes issuance of an injunction against further use of the Act authorizes the Attorney to. Covered jurisdiction to terminate this coverage interest in republishing this Story provision soon be its. `` we issue no holding on Section 5 for an additional 25 years, and applicable to... Legal practitioner need to select stories to be republished individually Act 2002 1 South Australia many plans were later.. Evidence of racial discrimination in voting in the partial coverage of ten states wholesale, or automatically you! Be implemented used until a favorable determination has been obtained typical remedy includes issuance an. The provisions of law, and applicable only to certain states, modify procedure! As early as 2009, UC-Irvine law professor Rick Hasen laid out a scenario which. That explain Section 5 was enacted, the petitioner company being a Government Congress did,,... A. matter of fact, the Attorney General interposes an objection another language judgment route remains available to jurisdictions after. A legal practitioner support ProPublica ’ s okay to put our stories appear must. Rights-Era provision soon be on its way out the door 432 U.S. 491 ( 1977.!