Also known as: administrative preclearance procedure · preclearance procedures · preclearance procedure · preclearance · administrative preclearance
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal administrative requirement that certain states obtain approval from the Department of Justice or a federal court before implementing changes to voting laws or procedures. The requirement rests on coverage formulas that identify jurisdictions with histories of discrimination. Such procedures impose federal oversight on state election administration to prevent dilution of minority voting strength.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
State A seeks to relocate polling places in several counties based on current population shifts. The state must first submit the changes for federal review because it remains designated under a coverage formula drawn solely from 1970s turnout data. A court enjoins the changes after finding no contemporary evidence of discrimination to justify the selective burden on State A.
The Arizona State Legislature draws new congressional districts after the census. Because Arizona falls under the preclearance regime, the legislature must obtain federal approval before the maps take effect. The independent redistricting commission later assumes responsibility for the submission and secures clearance after demonstrating compliance with minority voting protections.
South Carolina adopts a new literacy test for voter registration. The state submits the test to the Attorney General for preclearance under the Voting Rights Act coverage formula. Federal officials deny approval after finding the test would disproportionately exclude minority voters in covered jurisdictions.
Georgia submits a redistricting plan that creates additional majority-minority districts to the Department of Justice. The plan undergoes preclearance review because the state is a covered jurisdiction. Federal officials object, prompting the state to revise the map to avoid racial predominance in district lines.
A covered county in State A proposes extending early voting hours at sites near large retail centers. The county must file a preclearance submission before the change can occur. Federal reviewers examine whether the adjustment would improve or impair minority access based on historical turnout patterns.
Pinnacle Mall in a covered state plans to move voter registration kiosks to a higher-traffic location within its shopping center. The mall must obtain federal preclearance for the relocation because the state remains subject to the coverage formula. Review focuses on whether the move maintains or enhances minority voter access under longstanding data.
Coverage formulas based on historical voter turnout and registration data determine which jurisdictions must obtain federal approval before altering voting rules. Once a jurisdiction is covered, any change to polling locations, hours, district lines, or registration procedures requires submission and approval.
Supporting sources
The Court held that reliance on decades-old data to impose disparate treatment on some states but not others violates principles of equal sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power. Current conditions must supply extraordinary justification for continued selective federal oversight.
…not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color" or administrative preclearance from the Attorney General. Because the General Assembly's reapportionment plan affected the covered counties, the parties agree that § 5 applied. Tr. of Oral Arg. 14, 27-29. The State chose…
…even though we had stated that such broadening of §5 coverage would “exacerbate the substantial federalism costs that the preclearance procedure
…if the covered jurisdiction can demonstrate that it has not used such devices for discriminatory purposes. Section 5, the preclearance
…City of Rome v. United States , 446 U. S. 156, 161 (1980). In consequence, § 5 of the Act requires Georgia to obtain either administrative preclearance
Supporting sources
No. The regime historically operated on objective coverage formulas tied to turnout statistics rather than individualized findings of purposeful misconduct in each case. Statistical disparities alone triggered the obligation to obtain federal approval before implementing changes.
Equal sovereignty requires that any federal scheme subjecting some states but not others to preclearance must rest on contemporary evidence of need rather than stale historical data. Without updated justification, the selective burden on covered states violates federalism principles.