Citation network
Lopez Vs. Monterey County
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 02, 1998
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
Lopez v. MontereySearch
-
County - 525 U.S. 266 (1998) October Term, 1998 Syllabus Lopez Et Al. V. MontereySearch
-
obligation to preclear these changes. See Lopez v. MontereySearch
-
State effects voting changes in covered counties, see, e. g., United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. CareySearch
-
before the lower federal courts in which interested parties have labored under such an assumption, see, e. g., Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
power even if it prohibits conduct that is not itself unconstitutional and intrudes into such areas. City of Boerne v. FloresSearch
-
against a challenge that this provision usurps powers reserved to the States. See, e. g., South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
s preclearance requirements. Young v. FordiceSearch
-
U. S. 273 , 284, and City of Monroe v. UnitedSearch
-
preclearance requirement that this Court has recognized for voting changes crafted by federal district courts. Connor v. JohnsonSearch
-
U. S. 690 , 691, and McDaniel v. SanchezSearch
-
for electing judges in Monterey County, and we assume familiarity with our previous decision in this case. See Lopez v. MontereySearch
-
two municipal court and seven justice court districts. As we observed in our earlier opinion, see Lopez v. MontereySearch
-
in a 1995 special election to serve until January 1997. Following the election, however, this Court decided Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
We subsequently noted probable jurisdiction over the appeal, 517 U. S. 1118 (1996), and we reversed, Lopez v. MontereySearch
-
them. Relying on our decision in Young v. FordiceSearch
-
be precleared to the extent that it affects covered counties. In United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. CareySearch
-
s efforts to exempt its counties from the Act's coverage proved unsuccessful, see New York ex rel. New York County v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Shaw v. HuntSearch
-
see generally Perkins v. MatthewsSearch
-
partially covered States require preclearance before they take effect in covered jurisdictions. See, e. g., Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
Haith v. MartinSearch
-
United States v. OnslowSearch
-
preclearance). While this Court is not bound by its prior assumptions, see, e. g., Brecht v. AbrahamsonSearch
-
Dakota, both partially covered States). Subject to certain limitations not implicated here, see, e. g., Presley v. EtowahSearch
-
that section. Dougherty County Bd. of Ed. v. WhiteSearch
-
see, e. g., NAACP v. HamptonSearch
-
Amendments by their nature contemplate some intrusion into areas traditionally reserved to the States. City of Rome v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Act against a challenge that this provision usurps powers reserved to the States. See South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
see also City of Rome v. UnitedSearch
-
these tests in covered jurisdictions even where the tests had been enacted by a noncovered State. See Gaston County v. UnitedSearch
-
provision on behalf of its covered counties, but see United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. CareySearch
-
s preclearance requirements. In particular, the State relies on Young v. FordiceSearch
-
U. S. 273 (1997), and City of Monroe v. UnitedSearch
-
changes crafted wholly by a federal district court in the first instance do not require preclearance. See Connor v. JohnsonSearch
-
Id., at 695. We have since recognized limitations on the Connor exception. In McDaniel v. SanchezSearch
-
That interpretation draws some support from our decisions in Connor v. JohnsonSearch
-
U. S. 690 (1971) (per curiam), and Young v. FordiceSearch
-
need not seek preclearance when a noncovered entity requires them to implement specific voting changes. See Connor v. JohnsonSearch
-
voting changes at issue in fact embodied the policy preferences and determinations of the county itself. See McDaniel v. SanchezSearch
-
and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as those sections are properly understood. See Holder v. HallSearch
-
Beer v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial