A three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has upheld a lower court ruling that could significantly undermine the Voting Rights Act, dealing what has been described as a “body blow” to the landmark civil rights legislation that emerged during the height of the civil rights movement. The ruling has raised concerns about the erosion of citizen and civil rights group’s ability to challenge discriminatory state and local election laws.
The case in question, Arkansas State Conference NAACP v Arkansas Board of Apportionment, specifically addresses Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits election laws and policies that discriminate against voters based on race. The recent decision supports the notion that only the US Department of Justice can legally challenge such laws, leaving private citizens and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP unable to bring lawsuits independently.
Michael Li, senior counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, criticized the decision, stating that it is “so unmoored from precedent that even the current ultraconservative Supreme Court is almost certain to reverse it.” Under this ruling, voters facing discriminatory laws would have to rely solely on the Justice Department to take up their case, potentially leaving minority voters at a disadvantage if the department, under a Republican president, declines to intervene.
More Read
The case adds to a series of challenges the Voting Rights Act has faced over the years. The Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Shelby County v Holder struck down federal “preclearance” guidelines, a critical oversight measure from the 1965 Voting Rights Act aimed at preventing discriminatory laws. The 2018 decision in Brnovich v Democratic National Committee further complicated the ability to challenge election laws under Section 2.
Appeals court judge Judge David Stras, a Trump appointee, expressed skepticism about the enforceability of Section 2, stating that the “assumption” it can be enforced “rests on flimsy footing.” This decision has been met with criticism from various quarters, including Judith Browne Dianis, executive director of the Advancement Project, who labeled it a “travesty for democracy.”
The 2-1 decision, upholding a ruling by US District Court Judge Lee Rudofsky, a Trump appointee, has raised concerns about the potential consequences for voter suppression. Judge Rudofsky dismissed a lawsuit last year challenging a voting map in Arkansas, asserting that only the US Attorney General could join the case.
The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project director Sophia Lin Lakin, who argued the case, condemned the ruling as a “travesty for democracy” and warned that it jeopardizes critical protections that voters have fought and died for. Barry Jefferson, political action chair of the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP, called the decision a “devastating blow” to civil rights and the nation’s electoral system.
As the plaintiffs explore “all available options to ensure that the rights of all voters are fully protected,” Senate Republicans’ repeated blocking of efforts to restore elements of the Voting Rights Act and expand voting rights protections has come under scrutiny. Meanwhile, GOP lawmakers across the country have enacted restrictive voting laws and reshaped election administration roles, raising concerns about the future integrity of the nation’s electoral system.
