Divided Appeals Court Rules Against Private Individuals' Ability to Sue Under Voting Rights Act
A divided federal appeals court on Monday ruled that private individuals and groups such as the NAACP do not have the ability to sue under a key section of the federal Voting Rights Act, a decision that contradicts decades of precedent and could further erode protections under the landmark 1965 law.
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis found that only the attorney general can enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires political maps to include districts where minority populations' preferred candidates can win elections.
The majority said other federal laws, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, make it clear when private groups can sue but said similar wording is not found in the voting law.
"When those details are missing, it is not our place to fill in the gaps, except when 'text and structure' require it," Circuit Judge David R. Stras wrote for the majority in an opinion joined by Judge Raymond W. Gruender. Stras was nominated by former President Donald Trump and Gruender by former President George W. Bush.
The Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel had their case dismissed by a lower judge after Attorney General Merrick Garland was given five days to join the lawsuit.
In a dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Lavenski R. Smith mentioned that federal courts and the Supreme Court have dealt with similar cases brought by private plaintiffs under Section 2. Smith argued that the court should follow the "existing precedent that permits a judicial remedy" unless the Supreme Court or Congress decides otherwise.
"Rights that are fundamental to self-government and citizenship should not solely rely on the discretion or availability of the government's agents for protection," wrote Smith, who was appointed by President Bush.
Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, expressed disappointment in the ruling, calling it a "travesty for democracy." Lakin presented the appeal on behalf of the two Arkansas groups.
"By failing to overturn the district court's extreme decision, the Eighth Circuit has endangered the Voting Rights Act, disregarding crucial protections that voters have fought and died for," Lakin stated.
It is unclear at this time whether the groups will appeal. According to the ACLU, they are considering their options.
Barry Jefferson, political action chair of the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP, described the ruling as "a devastating blow to the civil rights of every American, and the integrity of our nation's electoral system."
Arkansas Redistricting Case Raises Concerns Over Minority Voter Representation
A recent court ruling in Arkansas has sparked concerns over the dilution of Black voter influence in the state's new House districts. The state NAACP chapter and a public policy group challenged the redistricting plan, arguing that it created too few majority-Black districts.
The groups contended that the state could have drawn more districts to better reflect the demographics of Arkansas, which would have resulted in 16 majority-Black districts instead of the 11 that were established.
U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky acknowledged the strong merits of the case, stating that some of the challenged districts may violate the federal Voting Rights Act. However, he ruled that the challenge could only be brought by the attorney general, preventing him from making a decision on the matter.
The Justice Department expressed its interest in the case by filing a "statement of interest," stating that private parties have the right to file lawsuits to enforce the Voting Rights Act. However, they declined to comment on the court's ruling.
The ruling only applies to federal courts covered by the 8th Circuit, which includes Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Similar lawsuits challenging political maps drawn by legislators are currently pending across the country.
It is expected that the case will eventually reach the Supreme Court, as the issue was previously raised in a 2021 opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch. In the opinion, Gorsuch highlighted the assumption that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides an implied cause of action under section 2.
In a recent ruling, two Supreme Court justices, Gorsuch and Thomas, were among the dissenters in a case regarding the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Black voters in Alabama who objected to the state's congressional districts, but Gorsuch and Thomas disagreed with the decision.
This opinion from Gorsuch and Thomas was referenced in a federal court decision just two weeks ago, where a different court came to the opposite conclusion. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans rejected arguments against the right to sue under the Voting Rights Act, citing previous Supreme Court cases that upheld the right of private litigants to bring lawsuits.
Election law experts point out that most challenges related to the Voting Rights Act are brought by private plaintiffs, as the Justice Department has limited resources to pursue such cases. Some experts also note the apparent contradiction between the Alabama case decided by the Supreme Court and the recent ruling by the appellate court.
Recreated News Article
"It doesn't seem to make sense," said a legal expert. "If the laws were that private parties couldn't bring these cases, then the specific case would have never even gotten off the ground."
Lawsuits under a certain section have long been used to try to ensure that a specific group of voters have adequate political representation in places with a long history of discrimination, including many states in the South. Manipulating district boundaries has been used in drawing legislative and congressional districts to either concentrate or disperse the votes of this specific group. If only a specific official is able to file such cases, it could significantly limit their number and make challenges largely dependent on political affiliations.
It's unlikely that the legislative body will be willing to take action. Recent attempts to reinstate protections in a voting rights act that were invalidated by a court a decade ago have been blocked by one political party. In a previous court decision, justices dismantled a mechanism that allowed for federal review of proposed election-related changes before they could take effect in certain states and communities with a history of discrimination.
In a statement, a prominent political caucus noted that private individuals and advocacy groups have been successful in giving the specific group of voters better representation through recent challenges to district maps drawn by lawmakers from a specific political party in multiple states.
"The group expressed strong disagreement with the decision made by the appellate court, deeming it unwise and unsustainable. They believe the case should be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court for appeal, in the hopes that it will affirm citizens' right to file lawsuits under Section 2 through a private right of action," the group stated.
