People v. McNeill

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• deciding only whether there existed a private cause of action and '‘postponing] any consideration of the merits until after they have been addressed by the District Court”
• explaining that the 1975 amendments to the VRA recognized that private rights of action were available to enforce the VRA
• acknowledging that Borak “applied a highly liberal standard for finding private remedies”
• holding the Voting Rights Act “only authorizes enforcement proceedings brought by the Attorney General and does not expressly mention private actions,” but nevertheless “Congress must have intended [] to provide private remedies”
• invalidating registration fee for Virginia senatorial nominating convention because the fee limited voters’ “influence on the field of candidates whose names [would] appear on the ballot” and thus “weaken[ed] the ‘effectiveness’ of their votes cast in the general election itself”
• “Like other cases challenging electoral practices, therefore, this controversy is not moot because it is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).