In the case of Vicky M. Lopez, et al. v. Monterey County, California, et al., 1996, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to voting rights and local governance in Monterey County in California. The county had been required by a federal court order to obtain pre-clearance from either the Attorney General or a three-judge panel at US District Court for any changes made to its electoral procedures under Section 5 of Voting Rights Act due to past discrimination against Hispanic voters. However, when state law mandated certain changes that affected elections within the county (but were not initiated by it), there was confusion over whether these also needed pre-clearance - which they hadn't obtained before being implemented. The Supreme Court ruled that even though these changes were instigated by state law rather than directly by Monterey County itself; because they impacted on how voting occurred within this specific jurisdiction still subject to Section 5 oversight due their history of discriminatory practices against Hispanic voters; therefore such alterations should have indeed been submitted for pre-approval as per usual procedure.

In the dissenting opinion for Vicky M. Lopez, et al. v. Monterey County, California, et al., Justice O'Connor disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). She argued that it was not Congress' intention to require local governments to seek federal approval before implementing state laws related to voting procedures if those laws had already been approved by federal authorities at a state level. In her view, this would create an unnecessary and burdensome process for local jurisdictions and could potentially undermine states' rights under the Constitution. Furthermore, she expressed concern that such an interpretation could lead to inconsistencies in how different parts of a single state implement their election laws depending on whether they fall under Section 5 jurisdiction or not.