The 8th Circuit Court ruling and the future of voting rights in America

The court's decision limits enforcement of Section 2 to attorney general, posing a threat to voting rights.


In a decision with far-reaching implications for American democracy, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has fundamentally altered the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. By ruling that only the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) can bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the Act, the court has potentially deprived private citizens and advocacy groups of a crucial tool in combating discriminatory electoral practices.

This 2-1 decision, led by Judge David Stras, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, and Judge Raymond Gruender, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, hinges on the interpretation that naming the attorney general as the plaintiff in the Act precludes others from suing. Chief Circuit Judge Lavenski Smith, dissenting, emphasized the importance of maintaining citizens’ ability to seek legal redress until altered by higher legal authority, highlighting the foundational rights crucial to self-governance and citizenship.

The case originates from a lawsuit filed by the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel against the state of Arkansas in late 2021. The lawsuit, under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, challenged a redistricting plan for Arkansas House races, arguing it undermined the voting strength of Black Arkansans.

This ruling has been met with significant concern and criticism from voting rights advocates. Sophia Lin Lakin, the director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, labeled the ruling a “travesty for democracy,” noting the long history of private individuals leveraging Section 2 to protect voting rights. Barry Jefferson, of the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP, condemned the decision as a devastating blow to civil rights and electoral integrity. Legal scholars and voting rights advocates have expressed shock at the court’s departure from decades of established legal precedent, raising concerns about the implications of this decision on the foundational protections of the Voting Rights Act.

The ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, whose conservative majority previously declined to significantly weaken the Voting Rights Act. The decision by the Supreme Court in this case could set a precedent with far-reaching consequences for voting rights in America.

Section 2 has been a crucial tool in combating racial discrimination in voting since its inception, instrumental in ensuring minority groups have equal access to the electoral process. Limiting its enforcement to the DOJ raises concerns about the effectiveness and scope of protection it can offer, especially under administrations less inclined to enforce voting rights protections.

If upheld, this ruling could severely limit the capacity of private citizens and organizations to challenge discriminatory voting practices, thereby placing an enormous burden on the DOJ to single-handedly uphold the protections of the Voting Rights Act. This shift could result in fewer cases being brought to court, potentially allowing discriminatory practices to go unchallenged.

The decision by the 8th Circuit Court has broader implications for American democracy. It suggests a narrowing of the avenues through which citizens can defend their fundamental right to vote. This has ramifications not just for the individuals and groups directly affected by discriminatory practices but for the integrity of the electoral process as a whole.

The 8th Circuit Court’s ruling represents a significant moment in the ongoing struggle for voting rights in America. It raises important questions about who can defend these rights and the role of the judiciary in upholding the core principles of the Voting Rights Act. As this case potentially progresses to the Supreme Court, it underscores the need for vigilant advocacy to protect the fundamental right to vote, a cornerstone of American democracy. The decision’s ramifications are far-reaching, potentially impacting voting rights litigation for years to come and highlighting the need for legislative or judicial clarification to ensure the continued robust protection of voting rights in the United States.


If you liked this article, please donate $5 to keep NationofChange online through November.