WASHINGTON (AP) \u2014 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\u00a0the landmark 1965 law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis found that only the U.S. attorney general can enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires\u00a0political maps\u00a0to include districts where minority populations\u2019 preferred candidates can win elections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The majority said other federal laws, including the\u00a01964 Civil Rights Act, make it clear when private groups can sue but said similar wording is not found in the voting law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhen those details are missing, it is not our place to fill in the gaps, except when \u2018text and structure\u2019 require it,\u201d U.S. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The decision affirmed\u00a0a lower judge\u2019s decision\u00a0to dismiss a case brought by the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel after giving U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland five days to join the lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chief Judge Lavenski R. Smith noted in a dissenting opinion that federal courts across the country and the U.S. Supreme Court have considered numerous cases brought by private plaintiffs under Section 2. Smith said the court should follow \u201cexisting precedent that permits a judicial remedy\u201d unless the Supreme Court or Congress decides differently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cRights so foundational to self-government and citizenship should not depend solely on the discretion or availability of the government\u2019s agents for protection,\u201d wrote Smith, another appointee of George W. Bush.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU\u2019s Voting Rights Project, called the ruling a \u201ctravesty for democracy.\u201d She had argued the appeal on behalf of the two Arkansas groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBy failing to reverse the district court\u2019s radical decision, the Eighth Circuit has put the Voting Rights Act in jeopardy, tossing aside critical protections that voters fought and died for,\u201d Lakin said in a statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It was not immediately clear whether the groups would appeal. A statement from the ACLU said they are exploring their options.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Barry Jefferson, political action chair of the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP, called the ruling \u201ca devastating blow to the civil rights of every American, and the integrity of our nation\u2019s electoral system.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The state NAACP chapter and the public policy group had\u00a0challenged new Arkansas state House districts\u00a0as diluting the influence of Black voters. The state\u2019s redistricting plan created 11 majority-Black districts, which the groups argued was too few. They said the state could have drawn 16 majority-Black districts to more closely mirror the state\u2019s demographics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky noted there was \u201ca strong merits case that at least some of the challenged districts\u201d in the lawsuit violate the federal Voting Rights Act but said he could not rule\u00a0after concluding\u00a0a challenge could only be brought by the U.S. attorney general.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Justice Department filed a \u201cstatement of interest\u201d in the case saying private parties can file lawsuits to enforce the Voting Rights Act but declined to comment on the ruling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Monday\u2019s ruling applies only to federal courts covered by the 8th Circuit, which includes Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. Meanwhile,\u00a0several pending lawsuits\u00a0by private groups challenge various political maps drawn by legislators across the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s likely the case eventually will make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the issue was raised in a 2021 opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cI join the court\u2019s opinion in full, but flag one thing it does not decide,\u201d Gorsuch wrote at the time, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. \u201cOur cases have assumed \u2014 without deciding \u2014 that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 furnishes an implied cause of action under section 2.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Gorsuch wrote that there was no need in that case for the justices to consider who may sue. But Gorsuch and Thomas were among the dissenters in June when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in another\u00a0Voting Rights Act case\u00a0in favor of\u00a0Black voters in Alabama\u00a0who objected to the state\u2019s congressional districts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Gorsuch and Thomas opinion was referenced less than two weeks ago in another federal court decision that came to the opposite conclusion of Monday\u2019s ruling by the St. Louis-based court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On Nov. 10, three judges on the conservative-dominated 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans rejected arguments that there is no private right to sue under the Voting Rights Act. In a\u00a0Louisiana congressional redistricting case, the panel said the U.S. Supreme Court so far has upheld the right of private litigants to bring lawsuits alleging violations of Section 2, as have other circuit appellate courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fifth Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick, a nominee of George W. Bush, pointed to separate cases from 1999 and 2020 that reaffirmed that right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Election law experts say most challenges seeking to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act are brought by private plaintiffs and that the Justice Department has limited resources to pursue such cases. Some voting rights experts also noted the apparent contradiction in the Alabama case decided by the Supreme Court last June and Monday\u2019s ruling by the appellate court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt doesn\u2019t seem to make sense,\u201d said Jon Greenbaum, chief counsel for the Lawyers\u2019 Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. \u201cIf the laws were that private parties couldn\u2019t bring these cases, then the Alabama case would have never even gotten off the ground.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lawsuits under Section 2 have long been used to try to ensure that Black voters have adequate political representation in places with a long history of racism, including many Southern states. Racial gerrymandering has been used in drawing legislative and congressional districts to pack Black voters into a small number of districts or spread them out so their votes are diluted. If only the U.S. attorney general is able to file such cases, it could sharply limit their number and make challenges largely dependent on partisan politics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s unlikely\u00a0Congress will be willing to act. Republicans have blocked recent efforts to restore protections in the Voting Rights Act that were\u00a0tossed out by the U.S. Supreme Court\u00a0a decade ago. In the 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision, justices dismantled an enforcement mechanism known as preclearance, which allowed for federal review of proposed election-related changes before they could take effect in certain states and communities with a history of discrimination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a statement, the\u00a0Congressional Black Caucus\u00a0noted that private individuals and civil rights groups have been successful in giving Black voters better representation through recent challenges to congressional maps drawn by Republican lawmakers in Alabama, Louisiana and Florida.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis decision by the appellate court is ill-advised, cannot stand, and should be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which we hope will reaffirm that citizens have a private right of action to bring forward lawsuits under Section 2,\u201d the group said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
WASHINGTON (AP) \u2014 A divided federal appeals court on Mo […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2954,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2953","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2953","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2953"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2953\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2955,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2953\/revisions\/2955"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2954"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}