Legal Opinion

United States v. Sandoval County, Nm

District Court, D. New Mexico

Decided July 6, 2011No. 88-CV-1457-BRB-DJSPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF LIMITED CONSENT DECREE

2Per curiam

In enacting § 203 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-la, Congress intended that “language minority populations have substantive access to the ballot.” H.R.Rep. No. 655, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. at 5 (1992), reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 766, 769. In the case of historically unwritten Native American languages, a jurisdiction covered under § 203 “must furnish oral instruction, assistance, or other information relating to registration and voting.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-la(c). As relevant here, the United States initiated…

3Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hutto v. FinneySupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  3. System Federation No. 91 v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  4. Frew Ex Rel. Frew v. HawkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  5. United States v. McKinley County, NMDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 1996

4Cited by4 opinions

  1. Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission v. San Juan CountyDistrict Court, D. Utah · 2016
  2. Toyukak v. MeyerDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 2021
  3. Toyukak v. MeyerDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 2023
  4. Toyukak v. MeyerDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 2025

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API