In a pivotal ruling, the full 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal to reconsider a groundbreaking decision that could significantly restrict the ability of private entities to pursue lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2. This decision, marking the first of its kind, has far-reaching implications for seven states within the 8th Circuit’s jurisdiction, including Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
Civil rights advocates, led by the Arkansas Public Policy Panel and the Arkansas State Conference NAACP, had sought to challenge a redistricting plan for the Arkansas State House of Representatives. Alleging that the plan diminished the voting influence of Black residents in the state, the activists faced a setback when the 8th Circuit panel, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that only government entities, not private plaintiffs, could bring forth cases under Section 2.
Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the plaintiffs decried the November ruling as “radical.” They argued that the decision overlooked the gravity of its potential impact on voter protections and, consequently, the democratic process itself.
Sophia Lin Lakin, an ACLU lawyer who argued the case, expressed disappointment, stating, “That it chose not to rehear the case ignores the gravity of what’s at stake — generations of precedent protecting voters and, in turn, our democracy.”
Despite the setback, the plaintiffs remain undeterred, stating that they are “exploring next legal steps.” This could potentially involve appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the stance on private litigants’ right to sue under Section 2 has been a subject of debate among the justices.
The November ruling, penned by U.S. Circuit Judge David Stras, appointed by former President Donald Trump, argued that the Voting Rights Act does not provide for a “private right of action.” This assertion contradicts the historical acceptance of such cases by courts, including the Supreme Court.
While three judges dissented from the decision not to rehear the case, emphasizing flaws in the November ruling, the broader implications of this legal standoff are poised to impact voting rights battles across the nation.
This latest development underscores the evolving landscape of voting rights litigation and the delicate balance between government authority and private citizens’ pursuit of justice in safeguarding democratic principles.
