Federal appeals court deals blow to Voting Rights Act, ruling that private plaintiffs can’t sue

In a recent ruling, a federal appeals court has delivered a significant setback to the Voting Rights Act by deciding that private individuals and groups, including the NAACP, lack the standing to sue under a crucial section of the legislation. This 2-1 decision by a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in St. Louis, held that only the U.S. attorney general possesses the authority to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This particular section mandates the inclusion of electoral districts where minority populations can elect their preferred candidates.

The majority opinion, authored by U.S. Circuit Judge David R. Stras and joined by Judge Raymond W. Gruender, emphasized that while federal laws such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act provide clear guidance on when private groups can initiate lawsuits, similar clarity is absent in the voting law. The court asserted that it should refrain from filling in such gaps unless “text and structure” explicitly necessitate it.

This ruling upheld the lower court’s decision to dismiss a case brought by the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel. These organizations had given U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland five days to join their lawsuit but were ultimately denied the opportunity to pursue their claims in court.

In a dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Lavenski R. Smith argued that federal courts across the country and the U.S. Supreme Court have previously considered cases brought by private plaintiffs under Section 2. Smith contended that the court should adhere to existing precedent that allows for a judicial remedy unless the Supreme Court or Congress dictates otherwise.

Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, decried the ruling as a “travesty for democracy.” She had represented the Arkansas groups in their appeal and expressed concern that this decision jeopardizes vital protections enshrined in the Voting Rights Act.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond the confines of the 8th Circuit, encompassing states like Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Moreover, it raises questions about the potential future involvement of the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly in light of Justice Neil Gorsuch’s previous remarks on the matter.

While this ruling has left many voting rights advocates disheartened, it underscores the ongoing debate about the scope and enforcement of voting rights legislation in the United States, and the potential consequences for ensuring fair representation and combating racial gerrymandering.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Voting Rights Act Ruling

More about Voting Rights Act Ruling

• Federal appeals court decision on Voting Rights Act
• Voting Rights Act Section 2
• Arkansas State Conference NAACP
• Arkansas Public Policy Panel
• U.S. Supreme Court
• Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion