07-17-2001 La Porte Redistricting Committee Regular Meeting

Browse Search

prohibii;ed purpose or effect, no o~ction shall be interposed to the change. (c) Objection. An objection shall be interposed to a submitted change if the Attorney General is unable to determine that the change is free of discriminatory purpose and effect. this includes those situations where the evidence as to the purpose or effect of the change is conflicting and the Attorney General is unable to determine that the change is free of discriminatory purpose and effect. (back to index) 51.53 Information considered. The Attorney General shall base a determination on a review of material presented by the submitting authority, relevant information provided by individuals or groups, and the results of any investigation conducted by the Department of Justice. (back to index) 51.54 Dis~:,riminatory effect. (a) Rel:rogression. Achange 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 jurisdic;tion'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 subpairagraph (b)(4) below, 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) Thee implementation and use of an unprecleared voting change subject to Section 5 review under S 51.18(a) does not operate to make that unprecleared change a benchmark for any subsequent change submitted by the jurisdiction. See S 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. (back to index) 51.55 Consistency with constitutional and statutory requirements. (a) Consideration in general. In making a determination the Attorney General will consider whether the cl-iange 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