§ 51.54 Discriminatory effect.

(a) Retrogression. A change affecting voting is considered to have a discriminatory effect under section 5 if it will lead to a retrogression in the position of members of a racial or language minority group (i.e., will make members of such a group worse off than they had been before the change) with respect to their opportunity to exercise the electoral franchise effectively. See Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 140-42 (1976).

(b) Benchmark. (1) In determining whether a submitted change is retrogressive the Attorney General will normally compare the submitted change to the voting practice or procedure in effect at the time of the submission. If the existing practice or procedure upon submission was not in effect on the jurisdiction's applicable date for coverage (specified in the appendix) and is not otherwise legally enforceable under section 5, it cannot serve as a benchmark, and, except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the comparison shall be with the last legally enforceable practice or procedure used by the jurisdiction.

(2) The Attorney General will make the comparison based on the conditions existing at the time of the submission.

(3) The implementation and use of an unprecleared voting change subject to section 5 review under §51.18(a) does not operate to make that unprecleared change a benchmark for any subsequent change submitted by the jurisdiction. See § 51.18(c).

(4) Where at the time of submission of a change for section 5 review there exists no other lawful practice or procedure for use as a benchmark (e.g., where a newly incorporated college district selects a method of election) the Attorney General's preclearance determination will necessarily center on whether the submitted change was designed or adopted for the purpose of discriminating against members of racial or language minority groups.

§ 51.55 Consistency with constitutional and statutory requirements.

(a) Consideration in general. In making a determination the Attorney General will consider whether the change is free of discriminatory purpose and retrogressive effect in light of, and

with particular attention being given to, the requirements of the 14th, 15th, and 24th amendments to the Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1971(a) and (b), sections 2, 4(a), 4(f)(2), 4(f)(4), 201, 203(c), and 208 of the Act, and other constitutional and statutory provisions designed to safeguard the right to vote from denial or abridgment on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.

(b) Section 2. Preclearance under section 5 of a voting change will not preclude any legal action under section 2 by the Attorney General if implementation of the change demonstrates that such action is appropriate.

[52 FR 490, Jan. 6, 1987, as amended at 63 FR 24109, May 1, 1998]

$51.56 Guidance from the courts.

In making determinations the Attorney General will be guided by the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and of other Federal courts.

$51.57 Relevant factors.

Among the factors the Attorney General will consider in making determinations with respect to the submitted changes affecting voting are the following:

(a) The extent to which a reasonable and legitimate justification for the change exists.

(b) The extent to which the jurisdiction followed objective guidelines and fair and conventional procedures in adopting the change.

(c) The extent to which the jurisdiction afforded members of racial and language minority groups an opportunity to participate in the decision to make the change.

(d) The extent to which the jurisdiction took the concerns of members of racial and language minority groups into account in making the change.

$51.58 Representation.

(a) Introduction. This section and the sections that follow set forth factorsin addition to those set forth abovethat the Attorney General considers in reviewing redistrictings (see §51.59), changes in electoral systems (see § 51.60), and annexations (see § 51.61).

(b) Background factors. In making determinations with respect to these changes involving voting practices and procedures, the Attorney General will consider as important background information the following factors:

(1) The extent to which minorities have been denied an equal opportunity to participate meaningfully in the political process in the jurisdiction.

(2) The extent to which minorities have been denied an equal opportunity to influence elections and the decisionmaking of elected officials in the jurisdiction.

(3) The extent to which voting in the jurisdiction is racially polarized and political activities are racially segregated.

(4) The extent to which the voter registration and election participation of minority voters have been adversely affected by present or past discrimination.

or

malapportioned districts deny abridge the right to vote of minority citizens.

(b) The extent to which minority voting strength is reduced by the proposed redistricting.

(c) The extent to which minority concentrations are fragmented among different districts.

(d) The extent to which minorities are overconcentrated in one or more districts.

(e) The extent to which available alternative plans satisfying the jurisdiction's legitimate governmental interests were considered.

(f) The extent to which the plan departs from objective redistricting criteria set by the submitting jurisdiction, ignores other relevant factors such as compactness and contiguity, or displays a configuration that inexplicably disregards available natural or artificial boundaries.

(g) The extent to which the plan is inconsistent with the jurisdiction's stated redistricting standards.

§ 51.60 Changes in electoral systems.

In making determinations with respect to changes in electoral systems (e.g., changes to or from the use of atlarge elections, changes in the size of elected bodies) the Attorney General, in addition to the factors described above, will consider the following factors (among others):

(a) The extent to which minority voting strength is reduced by the proposed change.

(b) The extent to which minority concentrations are submerged into larger electoral units.

(c) The extent to which available alternative systems satisfying the jurisdiction's legitimate governmental interests were considered.

(a) Coverage. Annexations, even of uninhabited land, are subject to section 5 preclearance to the extent that they alter or are calculated to alter the composition of a jurisdiction's electorate. In analyzing annexations under section 5, the Attorney General only considers the purpose and effect of the annexation as it pertains to voting.

(b) Section 5 review. It is the practice of the Attorney General to review all of a jurisdiction's unprecleared annexations together. See City of Pleasant Grove v. United States, C.A. No. 80-2589 (D.D.C. Oct. 7, 1981).

(c) Relevant factors. In making determinations with respect to annexations, the Attorney General, in addition to the factors described above, will consider the following factors (among others):

(1) The extent to which a jurisdiction's annexations reflect the purpose or have the effect of excluding minorities while including other similarly situated persons.

(2) The extent to which the annexations reduce a jurisdiction's minority population percentage, either at the time of the submission or, in view of the intended use, for the reasonably foreseeable future.

(3) Whether the electoral system to be used in the jurisdiction fails fairly

to reflect minority voting strength as it exists in the post-annexation jurisdiction. See City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358, 367–72 (1975).

[52 FR 490, Jan. 6, 1987; 52 FR 2648, Jan. 23, 1987]

Subpart G-Sanctions

§ 51.62 Enforcement by the Attorney General.

(a) The Attorney General is authorized to bring civil actions for appropriate relief against violations of the Act's provisions, including section 5. See section 12(d).

(b) Certain violations of section 5 may be subject to criminal sanctions. See section 12(a) and (c).

§ 51.63 Enforcement by private parties. Private parties have standing to enforce section 5.

$51.64 Bar to termination of coverage (bailout).

(a) Section 4(a) of the Act sets out the requirements for the termination of coverage (bailout) under section 5. See §51.5. Among the requirements for bailout is compliance with section 5, as described in section 4(a), during the ten years preceding the filing of the bailout action and during its pendency.

(b) In defending bailout actions, the Attorney General will not consider as a bar to bailout under section 4(a)(1)(E) a section 5 objection to a submitted voting standard, practice, or procedure if the objection was subsequently withdrawn on the basis of a determination by the Attorney General that it had originally been interposed as a result of the Attorney General's misinterpretation of fact or mistake in the law, or if the unmodified voting standard, practice, or procedure that was the

Jurisdiction

subject of the objection received section 5 preclearance by means of a declaratory judgment from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

(c) Notice will be given to interested parties registered under §51.32 when bailout actions are filed or decided.

Subpart H-Petition To Change Procedures

§ 51.65 Who may petition.

Any jurisdiction or interested individual or group may petition to have these procedural guidelines amended. § 51.66 Form of petition.

A petition under this subpart may be made by informal letter and shall state the name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner, the change requested, and the reasons for the change.

$51.67 Disposition of petition.

The Attorney General shall promptly consider and dispose of a petition under this subpart and give notice of the disposition, accompanied by a simple statement of the reasons, to the petitioner.

APPENDIX TO PART 51-JURISDICTIONS COVERED UNDER SECTION 4(b) OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, AS AMENDED

The preclearance requirement of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended, applies 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).

Applicable Date

FEDERAL REGISTER citation

Alabama Alaska

Arizona

California:

Kings County Merced County Monterey County Yuba County Yuba County

Anson County

Beaufort County Bertie County Bladen County

Camden County

Caswell County

Chowan County

Nov. 1, 1972 Nov. 1, 1968 Nov. 1, 1972 Nov. 1, 1968

Nov. 1, 1964 Nov. 1, 1964 Nov. 1, 1964 Nov. 1, 1964 Nov. 1, 1964 Nov. 1, 1964

Nov. 1, 1964

30 FR 9897 31 FR 5081 30 FR 9897 31 FR 5081 31 FR 3317 30 FR 9897 30 FR 9897 31 FR 5081

36 FR 5809 40 FR 43746 36 FR 5809 40 FR 43746 36 FR 5809

Mar. 27, 1971. Sept. 23, 1975. Mar. 27, 1971. Sept. 23, 1975. Mar. 27, 1971.

Aug. 7, 1965. Mar. 29, 1966. Aug. 7, 1965. Mar. 29, 1966. Mar. 2, 1966. Aug. 7, 1965. Aug. 7, 1965. Mar. 29, 1966. Aug. 7, 1965. Aug. 7, 1965. Aug. 7, 1965. Aug. 7, 1965. Mar, 29, 1966. Aug. 7, 1965. Aug. 7, 1965. Aug. 7, 1965. Mar. 29, 1966. Aug. 7, 1965. Mar. 29, 1966. Aug. 7, 1965. Aug. 7, 1965. Oct. 22, 1975. Mar. 29, 1966. Aug. 7, 1965. Jan. 4, 1966. Aug. 7, 1965. Aug. 7, 1965.

Aug. 7, 1965.
Aug. 7, 1965.
Mar. 2, 1966.
Aug. 7, 1965.
Aug. 7, 1965.
Aug. 7, 1965.

PART 52-PROCEEDINGS BEFORE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGES

Sec.

52.01 Civil proceedings: Special master, pretrial, trial, appeal.

52.02 Criminal proceedings: Pretrial, trial.

§ 52.01 Civil proceedings: Special master, pretrial, trial, appeal.

(a) Sections 636 (b) and (c) of title 28 of the United States Code govern pretrial and case-dispositive civil jurisdiction of magistrate judges, as well as service by magistrate judges as special masters.

(b) It is the policy of the Department of Justice to encourage the use of magistrate judges, as set forth in this paragraph, to assist the district courts in resolving civil disputes. In conformity with this policy, the attorney for the government is encouraged to accede to a referral of an entire civil action for

disposition by a magistrate judge, or to consent to designation of a magistrate judge as special master, if the attorney, with the concurrence of his or her supervisor, determines that such a referral or designation is in the interest of the United States. In making this determination, the attorney shall consider all relevant factors, including

(1) The complexity of the matter, including involvement of significant rights of large numbers of persons;

(2) The relief sought;

(3) The amount in controversy;

(4) The novelty, importance, and nature of the issues raised;

(5) The likelihood that referral to or designation of the magistrate judge will expedite resolution of the litigation;

(6) The experience and qualifications of the magistrate judge; and

(7) The possibility of the magistrate judge's actual or apparent bias or conflict of interest.