holding that a city that is a political subdivision of a covered state may not independently bail out of Section 5’s pre-clearance requirement
How later courts described this case
- holding that a city that is a political subdivision of a covered state may not independently bail out of Section 5’s pre-clearance requirement
- expressing "doubt[s]" that a three-judge court convened under Section 5 has statutory jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to Section 5 raised by private parties
- “Rome argues that its Charter, having been amended in 1966 to provide for majority voting, did not provide for plurality voting in 1968, and that therefore the 1968 Code mandated majority voting”
- "Rome argues that . . . the 1968 Code mandated majority voting"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GASCH, District Judge.
I concur in the result.