Opinion ID: 577781
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Dispute Over Section 5's Pleading Requirements

Text: 11 As noted supra, the district court held that an allegation of racial discrimination is needed for a claim under section 5 [of the Voting Rights] Act, Barnett, 753 F.Supp. at 953, and that plaintiffs' failure to allege such discrimination amounted to a jurisdictional defect. Id. at 954. 12 Appellants contest the district court's interpretation of section 5, arguing that it is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Allen v. State Board of Elections, supra. They claim that Allen merely requires a section 5 plaintiff to identify a change in voting practices or procedures subject to the provisions of the Act and therefore subject to Justice Department preclearance, and leaves to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or the Justice Department the determination as to whether the new enactment has the purpose or effect of racial discrimination. Appellants further note that 42 U.S.C. § 1973c expressly states that any change in voting practices or procedures falling within the temporal and geographical parameters of the Act is subject to preclearance, and that therefore no allegation or proof of racial discrimination is necessary. 13 Appellees respond that the Supreme Court's decision in N.A.A.C.P. v. Hampton County Election Commission, 470 U.S. 166, 105 S.Ct. 1128, 84 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985), has modified the Allen standard to require a section 5 plaintiff to allege and prove that the challenged change in voting practices or procedures carries with it the potential for discrimination, and that the plaintiffs' failure to so allege in this case rendered their section 5 claim facially infirm. Appellees therefore urge affirmance of the district court's dismissal. 7 14