Also known as: preclearance regimes · preclearance · Section 5 preclearance · VRA preclearance
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statutory mechanism requiring designated jurisdictions to obtain federal approval before implementing changes to voting laws or procedures. The mechanism targets jurisdictions with histories of discriminatory practices and operates by mandating submission to the Department of Justice or a federal court for review. Approval is withheld if the change has the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race.
State A officials plan to adjust early voting hours in retail districts based on current turnout data. They proceed without federal submission because the coverage formula rests solely on 1970s statistics. The Department of Justice seeks an injunction, but the court finds the selective burden lacks extraordinary justification under equal sovereignty principles.
South Carolina enacts new literacy tests and submits them for federal review under the newly created regime. The Department of Justice objects after finding the tests would disproportionately exclude minority voters. The state challenges the regime's constitutionality but the court upholds the preclearance obligation as a valid enforcement measure.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The Arizona legislature draws new congressional districts and must submit the plan for federal preclearance because the state remains covered. The independent redistricting commission argues the submission requirement interferes with state authority. The court reviews whether the regime applies to the commission's actions.
Georgia submits a redistricting plan that creates additional majority-minority districts. The Department of Justice objects because the plan appears motivated by race rather than traditional districting principles. The state seeks judicial preclearance but the court denies approval after finding the plan violates equal protection standards.
A covered jurisdiction alters polling procedures in hospital districts and submits the change for preclearance review. Federal officials compare the process to device regulation that requires prior approval before market entry. The jurisdiction argues the analogy shows the regime imposes an improper pre-approval burden on core state functions.
North Carolina draws a serpentine majority-minority district and submits it under the preclearance regime. White voters challenge the district as an unconstitutional racial classification. The court examines whether the preclearance process itself triggers strict scrutiny of the district's shape.
A jurisdiction covered by the statutory formula must submit any change in voting laws or procedures to the Department of Justice or a federal court. The submission requirement applies before the change may take effect. The obligation arises from the coverage formula in the Voting Rights Act.
Supporting sources
The Court held that the formula relied on decades-old data without current justification for treating some states differently from others. Equal sovereignty principles require extraordinary justification for such disparate treatment. Reliance on stale statistics failed to meet that standard under the Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power.
Supporting sources
No jurisdiction remains subject to the preclearance requirement because the coverage formula was struck down. Congress has not enacted a new formula based on current data. The regime therefore has no practical effect until new legislation identifies covered jurisdictions.
Supporting sources
Preclearance requires advance federal approval of voting changes rather than after-the-fact challenges. It shifts the burden to the jurisdiction to prove the change lacks discriminatory purpose or effect. Case-by-case litigation was deemed inadequate to address the problem the regime targeted.
Supporting sources
…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…