About Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

• Introduction to the Requirements of Section 5
• Jurisdictions That Must Comply With Section 5 (Covered Jurisdictions)
• What Must be Submitted Under Section 5 (Covered Changes)
• Making Section 5 Submissions
• Section 5 Guidelines
• Notices of Section 5 Activity
• Section 5 Objections
• Section 5 Supreme Court Decisions

What Must Be Submitted Under Section 5

Only Voting Changes Require Review Under Section 5

It is important to understand that Section 5 applies only to changes in practices or procedures affecting voting. Continuous use of a voting practice in effect prior to the jurisdiction's coverage date does not implicate Section 5, nor does continued use of a practice already reviewed under Section 5.

In Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 565 (1969), the Supreme Court stated that the coverage of Section 5 was to be given a broad interpretation. Any change affecting voting, even though it appears to be minor or indirect, returns to a prior practice or procedure, ostensibly expands voting rights, or is designed to remove the elements that caused objection by the Attorney General to a prior submitted change, is subject to the Section 5 review requirement.

While reaffirming Allen in Presley v. Etowah County Com'n, 502 U.S. 491, 492 (1992), the Supreme Court emphasized that changes covered under Section 5 must have a direct relation to voting. The court provided a nonexclusive list of four categories in which voting changes covered under Section 5 would normally fall:

• changes in the manner of voting;
  
  
• changes in candidacy requirements and qualifications;
  
  
• changes in the composition of the electorate that may vote for candidates for a given office; and
  
  
• changes affecting the creation or abolition of an elective office.

In the cases consolidated before the Court in Presley, the changes involved the transfer of authority over road maintenance and construction between elected officials and from elected officials to an appointed official. The Court found these types of transfers not directly related to voting and, therefore, not subject to Section 5. Some transfers of authority between government officials, however, clearly have a direct relation to voting if they concern authority over voting procedures, such as a change in who has authority to adopt a redistricting plan, conduct voter registration, or select polling place officials.

Voting Changes Enacted or Administered by Any State Official Require Section 5 Review

There is a broad range of officials who enact or administer voting changes that are subject to Section 5 review, including legislative bodies (i.e., state legislatures, county commissions, city councils), executive officials (i.e., governors and mayors), and other officials (i.e., secretaries of state, county clerks, registrars). All voting changes adopted by a state court of a fully covered state require preclearance, as do voting changes adopted by a state court in a partially covered state if the change is to be implemented in a covered political subdivision of that state.

Some Federal Court Orders Require Section 5 Review

The Supreme Court has held that a voting change developed and imposed on a jurisdiction by a federal court is not subject to Section 5 review. These are generally referred to as "court- drawn" or "court-ordered" voting changes. However, if a voting change ordered by a federal court reflects the policy choices of the jurisdiction--for example, if it was presented to the court as a consent decree agreed to by the jurisdiction-- Section 5 review is required. These are generally referred to as "court adopted" changes.