In a contentious 2-1 ruling, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has dealt a significant blow to the enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), but there is wide speculation that the nation’s top court will review the issue.
This devastating decision affirmed a district court’s ruling that held that there is no private right of action under Section 2 of the VRA.
The decision, arising from the case of Arkansas NAACP v. Arkansas, holds that private litigants can no longer bring lawsuits under this crucial provision, which prohibits discrimination in redistricting and voting.
“Eliminating individual people’s right to sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act runs contrary to settled law, common sense, and any basic concept of fairness: when the government discriminates against people, they should have a right to fight back in court,” said Paul Smith, senior vice president of Campaign Legal Center.
The ruling contradicts decades of legal precedent, jeopardizing the ability of private individuals and groups to challenge discriminatory districts and protect the voting rights of minorities. While the Supreme Court recently affirmed the right of private plaintiffs in Allen v. Milligan, the 8th Circuit’s decision creates a stark division among the circuits.
The decision conflicts with rulings in other jurisdictions and the historical fact that over the last four decades, only 15 of at least 182 successful Section 2 cases were brought solely by the Attorney General.
The 8th Circuit’s decision, applicable to Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, restricts the filing of Section 2 cases to only the U.S. attorney general.
This limitation could adversely impact voters of color who rely on Section 2 to combat discrimination in redistricting. The dissent notes that historically, private parties have played a crucial role in bringing successful Section 2 cases.
Paul Smith, senior vice president of Campaign Legal Center (CLC), strongly criticized the ruling, stating that eliminating individuals’ right to sue under Section 2 runs counter to settled law and basic fairness. CLC, which submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, vows to continue fighting the decision alongside its partners.
Wendy Weiser, vice president for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, called the decision a radical move that would essentially undermine nationwide protections of the Voting Rights Act. Weiser expressed concern that preventing anyone other than the Department of Justice from enforcing these protections goes against decades of precedent and practice.
The case originated from a 2021 lawsuit challenging Arkansas’ new state House map. The 8th Circuit’s decision, authored by a Trump-appointed judge, affirmed a district court ruling that denied the existence of a private right of action under Section 2. This contradicts recent decisions in other circuits, such as the 5th Circuit, which recognized private parties’ right to bring Section 2 claims.
Legal experts warn that if the Supreme Court upholds the 8th Circuit’s decision, it could lead to a substantial reduction in Voting Rights Act cases. The scarcity of resources in the Justice Department’s voting rights section, even in Democratic administrations, could hinder the enforcement of protections against discriminatory redistricting.
While doubts persist about the Supreme Court’s inclination to uphold the ruling, the case exemplifies the broader shift in the judiciary landscape since the Trump administration, with Trump-appointed judges challenging established precedent in pursuit of political aims.
As the legal battle unfolds, the fate of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act hangs in the balance, raising fundamental questions about the future of voting rights and democracy in the United States.