On Monday, the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that private individuals and organizations are not allowed to sue under Section 2 of The Voting Rights Act, which prohibits the voting practices that discriminate based on race or color. Originating from an Arkansas redistricting case, the opinion of the panel of three judges was written by Trump appointee David Stras; the other two judges were George W. Bush appointees.
The decision, which affects Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, states that only the US Attorney General can sue under Article 2. This is a major blow to the Voting Rights Act, as prior to the decision, a vast majority of the Article 2 lawsuits have been brought by private plaintiffs, such as civil rights organizations, who have the time, manpower, and funds to ensure the law is enforced. The DOJ severely lacks the same resources, and ultimately only pursues a few cases annually, so making Article 2 lawsuits exclusively the right of the DOJ would lead to poor enforcement.
Source: TNR
The original case comes from an Arkansas redistricting case in which only 11 out of the 100 Arkansas districts were majority-black, despite 16.5% of the population being black. There is a chance that the entire 8th Circuit will review the case, but it is more likely that the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court, creating a showdown that will affect voting rights for years to come.
As we studied in class, our voting system is deeply flawed and undemocratic, and measures to further weaken the small amount of democracy we have pose a grave danger to our freedom. If the 6-3 republican majority in the Supreme Court rules upholds the current opinion, then the already excessive amount of gerrymandering and voter discrimination will skyrocket. It is integral for American democracy that we fight back against the regression of American civil liberties that we have witnessed in the past few years.
-Ethan Deng
Sources:
5 comments:
I think it's abhorrent that conservative justices would allow infringements on such a fundamental right, especially when their argument for ruling that private organizations and individuals cannot sue is (from the majority opinion written by Judge Raymond W. Gruender. Stras) "When those details are missing, it is not our place to fill in the gaps, except when ‘text and structure’ require it." Whether or not individuals and private organizations can sue is not explicitly stated but has a precedent, and it's ridiculous to claim that the judicial system must stick only to the exact words of a law when something like "judicial review" isn't even explicitly stated. This is clearly a power move to allow disenfranchisement of voters who would vote predominantly Democratic.
https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-federal-court-private-lawsuits-00b9c4bb2174aa8077db296c3edf7c79
I agree with Alex that the argument supporting this ruling is unjustified, especially since the private right of action is an indispensable tool to safeguard the Voting Rights Act. As Chief Circuit Judge Lavenski Smith noted, the US Justice Department has a dismal track record of enforcing Section 2, with the DOJ only bringing in 15 out of 182 successful cases in the past 40 years. As the right to vote is so vital and foundational in our democracy, its protection cannot be taken away from citizens and left in the hands of often-ineffective government agencies. Private organizations have proven over time to be highly effective in holding public officials accountable and challenging discriminatory voting practices. The decision to strip away the private right of action and silence these voices represents a misguided and dangerous step backwards.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/20/politics/appeals-court-voting-rights-act-ruling/index.html
I agree with the sentiments above and in the post. Private individuals and groups have overwhelmingly been the party that challenges discrimination in election laws- the idea that only the government or the DOJ can challenge such problems is simply outdated. One singular department is too burdened and clearly has not been able to take the multitudes of cases that may have and have arisen in previous years. However, because this case will more than likely be brought to the Supreme Court, based on its recent rulings and historical precedent, I don't believe that this ruling will stand. I'd like to point out Chief Judge Smith's dissent, where he said: “Admittedly, the Court has never directly addressed the existence of a private right of action under [Article 2],” the court has “repeatedly considered such cases, held that private rights of action exist under other sections of the VRA, and concluded in other VRA cases that a private right of action exists under [Article 2].” [Washington Post]. I think this just about encapsulates the "right" decision in this case. While there is the admittance that, yes, the rights of private entities don't exist under the Article, there is a long historical precedent of the Court doing so- and that it should stay that way. Additionally, I find it interesting the makeup of the court- all three judges are Republican, and the two that were appointed by Bush had a split vote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/20/voting-rights-act-lawsuit/
Yes, I agree with the opinions here-- this decision is NOT okay. But, I want to draw attention to another aspect of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. According to CBS (see link below), section 2 "requires political maps to include districts where minority populations' preferred candidates can win elections". In this regard, section 2 has been long covertly violated within America, long before Monday's decision. Especially in Southern states, gerrymandering has long been used to affect district voting results. Minority groups, most notably Black voters, are commonly either all zoned to a small number of districts or distributed among a wide number of districts so thinly that their opinion holds no importance. This decision isn't merely just taking away an opportunity of equality for racial minorities, but stripping these groups of a tool to fight against the deeply permeant idea of racism within America.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-appeals-court-deals-blow-to-voting-rights-act-ruling-that-private-plaintiffs-cant-sue-2/
This decision is much more significant than it seems. As the Guardian would put it, "The ruling is not simply an esoteric question of law: it would dismantle the primary mechanism voting rights groups use to protect against racial discrimination in voting." That means that if a groups finds that their state or local government are in violation of this act, they have almost no power or leverage to protect their rights, and must rely on the federal government to do so on their behalf. That means, as Chin-Yi stated, that problems that already exist in the Southern states, such as gerrymandering and voter suppression would be greatly worsened seeing as there is now virtually no consequence to their actions.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/20/voting-rights-act-appeals-court-ruling#:~:text=Court%20rules%20that%20only%20US%20government%20can%20sue%20to%20enforce%20Voting%20Rights%20Act,-Shock%20ruling%20from&text=A%20federal%20appeals%20court%20shocked,the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act's%20provisions.
Post a Comment