US Appeals Court Makes Major Modification to Voting Rights Act
The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit on Monday voted 2-1 to determine that only the US Attorney General can sue under a key section of the Voting Rights Act, meaning private groups are barred from taking legal action related to Section 2 of the law....
Facts
- The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit on Monday voted 2-1 to determine that only the US Attorney General can sue under a key section of the Voting Rights Act, meaning private groups are barred from taking legal action related to Section 2 of the law.1
- The St. Louis-based court ruled that while other federal laws clearly state when private groups can sue, the voting law lacks such a provision. The two judges in the majority were appointed by Republicans — former Pres. Donald Trump and former president George W. Bush.2
- This ruling upholds a 2022 decision by US District Judge Lee Rudofsky, another Trump appointee, empowering just the Attorney General to file lawsuits related to Section 2’s protections against racially discriminatory voting rules.3
- For decades, private individuals and groups unrelated to the US government have brought the majority of suits related to Section 2 to challenge the redrawing of voting maps and other actions that could potentially violate the law.4
- The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will most likely be the next court to hear this case.5
Sources: 1USA Today, 2Associated Press, 3Reuters, 4NPR Online News and 5The hill.
Narratives
- Democratic narrative, as provided by Atlantic. This ruling is unconstitutional and in violation of every precedent, the courts have set in past similar cases. Republicans, though, see a path to more electoral victories if they can weaken the 15th Amendment’s protections against racial discrimination, so decisions like this are bound to come down the pike. It’ll be up to the Supreme Court to stop this dilution of voting rights.
- Republican narrative, as provided by PJ Media. Regardless of whether SCOTUS upholds this ruling, something has to be done to limit Democrats’ ability to challenge voting maps and other electoral mechanisms in an effort to gain legislative majorities through the courts rather than the ballot box. Many voting maps drawn by courts or commissions strike a respectable balance, but Democrats seem to always want the maps skewed in their favor.
