In the case of Vicky M. Lopez, et al. v. Monterey County et al., 1998, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding voting rights in Monterey County, California. The county had been required to obtain federal approval for any changes to its election procedures under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act due to past discrimination against Hispanic voters but failed to do so when implementing state-mandated redistricting plans from 1981 and 1991. A group of Latino residents sued arguing that this violated their voting rights by diluting their electoral power without federal oversight or approval as mandated by law. The court held that even though these changes were mandated by state law rather than initiated at the local level, they still fell within Section 5's purview and thus required federal preclearance before implementation could occur legally. This ruling affirmed that all jurisdictions covered under section five must seek pre-clearance for any change affecting voting regardless if it is locally or externally imposed.

In the dissenting opinion for Vicky M. Lopez, et al. v. Monterey County 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 jurisdictions covered by this section to seek federal approval before implementing state laws related to voting procedures which were already precleared at a state level. In her view, such an interpretation would lead to unnecessary federal intrusion into local affairs and could potentially undermine states’ rights and sovereignty under our system of dual sovereignty. Furthermore, she expressed concern about potential delays in election processes due to waiting for preclearance from either the Attorney General or District Court in Washington D.C., especially when these laws had already been approved at a higher jurisdictional level.