On the brink: Supreme Court may endanger Voting Rights Act’s legacy


Powered 100% by reader donations, NationofChange is your ad-free, transparent platform for progressive journalism and activism. Make a difference by donating now.

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, a cornerstone of American civil rights legislation, faces a pivotal moment that could redefine its future. A recent ruling by the Eighth United States Circuit Court of Appeals has triggered alarms, signaling that the Supreme Court may now be poised to further erode this crucial act, potentially undermining decades of progress in voting rights. Since its inception, the VRA has been instrumental in dismantling systemic barriers to voting, particularly for racial minorities. Its potential weakening could have far-reaching implications, not just legally but for the very fabric of American democracy.

The VRA, enacted to enforce the 15th Amendment, has been a beacon of hope in the struggle against racial discrimination in voting. Its journey, however, has been fraught with challenges. Initially targeting discriminatory practices like literacy tests and poll taxes, the VRA has faced persistent opposition, especially from right-wing factions. Over the years, the Supreme Court has played a critical role in interpreting the VRA, with decisions that have alternately strengthened and weakened its provisions. The act’s resilience in the face of these challenges has been a testament to its importance in the American legal and political landscape.

In the case of Arkansas NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, the Eighth Circuit’s decision marked a significant departure from long-established legal norms. The panel’s two-to-one ruling stated that only the Department of Justice (DOJ) could bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the VRA, effectively dismissing the lawsuit filed by Black Arkansas voters. This ruling, if not overturned, could significantly restrict the ability of individuals and civil rights groups to challenge racial gerrymandering and other forms of voting discrimination, thereby limiting one of the most effective tools for protecting voting rights.

The Supreme Court’s potential review of this case could be a watershed moment for the VRA. Historically, the Court has been the arbiter of key voting rights decisions, and its interpretations have shaped the trajectory of American civil rights. The recent trend of decisions, such as Allen v. Milligan and Moore v. Harper, where the court upheld voting rights, suggests a complex landscape. However, with a conservative majority currently in place, there is a tangible risk that the Court may side with the Eighth Circuit’s restrictive interpretation, thereby delivering a significant blow to the VRA’s efficacy.

The recent ruling from the Eighth Circuit Court has been significantly influenced by the composition of the court, particularly the role of Trump-appointed judges. Judge David Stras, a Trump appointee, was instrumental in affirming the decision that only the DOJ could enforce Section 2 of the VRA. This perspective, aligning with the conservative textualist approach, reflects a broader trend where recent judicial appointments have begun to reshape the landscape of voting rights law. The involvement of judges with such ideological leanings raises concerns about the potential for more restrictive interpretations of the VRA, which could further limit its effectiveness in combating voting discrimination.

Implications of restricted enforcement of the Voting Rights Act

If the Supreme Court upholds the Eighth Circuit’s decision, the implications for voting rights could be profound. The restriction of VRA enforcement to the DOJ would significantly diminish the act’s scope, as historically, private parties and civil rights groups have played a critical role in bringing forward cases of voting discrimination. Such a limitation would not only reduce the number of cases that could be brought forward but could also lead to a scenario where discriminatory practices go unchallenged, especially during administrations less inclined to enforce civil rights laws vigorously.

The history of the VRA has been one of both bipartisan support and contention. While the act was amended and renewed multiple times with bipartisan backing, recent years have seen a shift. This change is reflected in the lack of Republican support for recent legislative efforts to strengthen the VRA, notably contrasting with past reauthorizations. The shifting political landscape highlights the changing attitudes towards voting rights within Congress and underscores the need for renewed bipartisan commitment to uphold the principles of the VRA.

The DOJ’s role in enforcing the VRA, while crucial, is limited by its resources. Historically, the DOJ has only been able to bring a fraction of Section 2 cases due to these constraints. This limitation is significant because, under the Eighth Circuit’s ruling, the responsibility for enforcing a critical component of the VRA would fall solely on the DOJ, potentially leaving many instances of voting discrimination unaddressed. This reality underscores the importance of allowing private parties and civil rights groups to continue playing an active role in enforcing the VRA.

The potential narrowing of the VRA’s enforcement mechanism has national implications. It would not only affect the states under the jurisdiction of the Eighth Circuit but could also set a precedent for other circuits, potentially leading to a patchwork of voting rights protections across the country. This scenario could result in uneven enforcement of voting rights, depending on geographical location and the prevailing political climate. The future of voting rights in the U.S., therefore, hinges on the ability to maintain a robust and broadly accessible mechanism for challenging voting discrimination, a principle that lies at the heart of the VRA.


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