About Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
Litigation Concerning Section 5
Several types of lawsuits involve Section 5 issues. The Attorney General or private
plaintiffs may bring a Section 5 enforcement action against a covered jurisdiction to obtain
an injunction against the use of a change affecting voting that has not been reviewed Section 5.
These cases are brought in the appropriate United States District Court for the state in which
the Section 5 violation is alleged to occur. Covered jurisdictions may bring declaratory
judgment actions against the United States, before the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia, to obtain Section 5 review of for voting changes or to terminate their
coverage, under the Act's special provision, (also known as "bailing out") as provided
by Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Act requires that Section 5 enforcement actions and declaratory judgment
actions under both Section 4 and 5 be heard and decided by three-judge courts. These courts are
typically composed of two United States District Court judges and one United States Court of
Appeals judge. Appeals from these courts go directly to the United States Supreme Court.
Recent Section 5 Supreme Court Decisions
The United States Supreme Court has issued opinions in the following Section 5 cases since
January 1, 1997:
On June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia denying the State of Georgia's request for a declaratory judgment that
its 2001 redistricting plan for the state senate complied with Section 5.
State of Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003). The Court remanded the case to the
district court for further proceedings. On remand, the United States filed
United States' Response to Order to Show Cause* and United States' Reply
to Georgia's Response to Order to Show Cause*. On February 20, 2004, the district court
dismissed the case.
* If you have difficulty accessing the documents because of a disability, please contact the Voting
Section at 1-800-253-3931 to receive a printed copy.
On January 24, 2000, the Supreme Court affirmed the granting of a decision by the District Court
for the District of Columbia which granted Section 5 preclearance to a redistricting plan for the
Bossier Parish School Board in Bossier Parish, Louisiana. The Supreme Court held that jurisdictions
are required to show that their redistricting plans do not have either
the purpose or effect of worsening the position of minority voters. A redistricting plan
adopted with a discriminatory but nonretrogressive purpose may not be denied Section 5 preclearance
for that reason alone, but will be subject to federal court challenges under the Constitution
and/or Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 528 U.S. 320(2000).
In 1997, the Supreme Court had vacated and remanded an earlier decision by the District Court
for the District of Columbia which had granted Section 5 preclearance to the Bossier Parish School
Board's redistricting plan. The Court also held that Section 5 preclearance
may not be denied solely because a voting change violates the "results test" of Section 2
of the Voting Rights Act. Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 520 U.S. 471 (1997).
On January 20, 1999, the Supreme Court decided that Monterey County, California, was required to
obtain Section 5 preclearance for the consolidation of several elected municipal courts into a
countywide municipal court. The fact that the consolidation was required by state law (the State
of California is not a Section 5 covered jurisdiction) did not affect the need to obtain preclearance
because Monterey County is a covered jurisdiction. The Court also found that Section 5 did not
unconstitutionally violate state sovereignty.
Lopez v. Monterey County, 525 U.S. 266 (1999).
On March 31, 1998, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a Section 5
declaratory judgment action filed by the State of Texas in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia was not ripe for litigation. The case concerned whether the appointment of
certain officials could replace elected school boards and require Section 5 preclearance.
Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296 (1998).
On November 17, 1997, the Supreme Court decided that the City of Monroe, Georgia, was not required
to obtain Section 5 preclearance for its use of a majority-vote requirement because it already had
been precleared in a previous Section 5 submission. The Supreme Court did not address whether the
voting change was racially discriminatory.
City of Monroe v. United States, 522 U.S. 34 (1997).
On June 27, 1997, the Supreme Court decided in a per curiam decision that changes in the manner of
selecting election judges in Dallas County, Texas could be covered changes under Section 5.
Foreman v. Dallas County, Texas, 521 U.S. 979 (1997).
On March 31, 1997, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that voting and registration procedures
used following Mississippi's decision to limit NVRA voters to participation only in federal elections
are subject to Section 5 review. Of all the states, Mississippi alone excluded NVRA voters from
participation in state and local elections. The United States argued as amicus curiae that the
procedures were covered by Section 5.
Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273 (1997).
Back to top
