East Flatbush Election Committee v. Cuomo

5 Citing cases

  1. Latham v. Molpus

    642 So. 2d 1340 (Miss. 1994)   Cited 1 times

    As the Madison County Circuit Court action has been explicitly "pre-cleared", however, by the United States Attorney General, we hold that it is effective under the terms of H.B. 1809. 1994 Miss. Laws, ch. 564, § 104. The "seeming oxymoron of retroactive preclearance" has long since been recognized by the courts applying the Voting Rights Act. East Flatbush Election Comm. v. Cuomo, 643 F. Supp. 260 (D.C.E.D.N.Y. 1986); See, NAACP v. Hampton Cnty. Election Comm., 470 U.S. 166, 105 S.Ct. 1128, 84 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985); Berry v. Doles, 438 U.S. 190, 98 S.Ct. 2692, 57 L.Ed.2d 693 (1978); Dennis v. Pendley, 518 So.2d 688 (Ala. 1987). That such would occur is certainly within the pale of legislative contemplation.

  2. Armour v. State of Ohio

    925 F.2d 987 (6th Cir. 1991)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that three-judge courts are mandatory for cases encompassed within § 2284

    Other circuits have employed similar reasoning in voting rights cases that require a three-judge court under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. See Backus v. Spears, 677 F.2d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 1982); United States v. Cohan, 470 F.2d 503, 504-05 (5th Cir. 1972); East Flatbush Election Comm. v. Cuomo, 643 F. Supp. 260, 263 (E.D.N.Y. 1986) (three-judge court); Cavanagh v. Brock, 577 F. Supp. 176, 180 n. 3 (E.D.N.C. 1983) (three-judge court). Each court concluded that the language of § 5, like the language of § 2284, is mandatory and that it had no choice in the matter beyond the necessary threshold determination.

  3. Myles v. Jacobs

    CV 17-6424 (JMA) (ARL) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 17, 2019)

    "The Voting Rights Act was promulgated to ensure that the guarantees of the Fifteenth Amendment." E. Flatbush Election Comm. v. Cuomo, 643 F. Supp. 260, 263 (E.D.N.Y. 1986). It reflects a firm congressional intent to rid the country of racial discrimination in voting."

  4. Leyva, v. Bexar County Republican Party

    Civil Action No. SA-02-CA-408-EP (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2002)

    " Id. at 192-193. In East Flatbush Election Committee v. Cuomo, 643 F. Supp. 260, 264 (E.D.N.Y. 1986), the voting procedures had been retroactively approved at the time the court was reviewing the § 5 claim. The three-judge court in East Flatbush held that "retroactive federal approval satisfies the preclearance requirements of § 5."

  5. Moore v. Caledonia Natural Gas Dist.

    890 F. Supp. 547 (N.D. Miss. 1995)   Cited 4 times

    The court has located only one case where the procedures had been retroactively approved at the time the court was reviewing the § 5 claim. In East Flatbush Election Committee v. Cuomo, 643 F. Supp. 260, 264 (E.D.N.Y. 1986), a three-judge court held that "retroactive federal approval satisfies the preclearance requirements of § 5." Since the new procedures were eventually approved, the court held that the changes did not violate the prescription of § 5.