Supreme Court Plans to Kill the Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act, a crucial piece of legislation enacted in 1965 to safeguard the 15th Amendment rights against racial discrimination in voting, is facing a significant threat. Recent decisions, particularly by the Eighth United States Circuit Court of Appeals, have raised concerns about the ability of civil rights groups and individuals to enforce the Act’s provisions. The Supreme Court, having weakened the Act in the past, may be on the verge of delivering a devastating blow by potentially ruling that only the Department of Justice (DOJ), not private entities, can file lawsuits to protect voting rights.

Unraveling the Legal Landscape for Voting Rights

1. Eighth Circuit’s Controversial Ruling:
   • In the case of Arkansas NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a two-to-one decision, asserted that only the DOJ has the authority to file lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
   • This decision departed from prior case law and is considered a departure from the conventional interpretation of the Act.
2. Weakening Section 2 through Supreme Court Actions:
   • The Supreme Court, in the 2021 case of Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, already diminished the protection offered by Section 2. This decision upheld Arizona’s voter suppression laws, making it easier for states to implement laws disproportionately affecting voters of color.
   • The 2013 case of Shelby County v. Holder had earlier struck down a key provision of Section 5, requiring preclearance of voting rules in historically discriminatory jurisdictions, signaling the Court’s skepticism towards voting rights enforcement.
3. Trump-Appointed Judges and Legal Perspectives:
   • The Eighth Circuit’s decision was written by Judge David Stras, appointed by Donald Trump, and endorsed the idea that only the DOJ, not private entities, could enforce Section 2.
   • The dissenting opinion by Chief Judge Lavenski Smith highlighted that relying solely on the DOJ for enforcement might render Section 2 ineffective, particularly under administrations less inclined to pursue such cases.
4. Challenges to Legislative History:
   • Plaintiffs argued that Congress, during the 1982 amendment to the Voting Rights Act, intended for citizens to have a private cause of action under Section 2. However, Judge Stras dismissed this, questioning the reliability of legislative history as an interpretive tool.
5. Potential Supreme Court Intervention:
   • With a split emerging among federal appeals courts, the Supreme Court might take up the Arkansas case to resolve the conflicting interpretations.
   • Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have expressed interest in determining whether Section 2 allows a private right of action, and the potential alignment of other justices remains uncertain.

The Stakes for Democracy and Voting Rights

The impending Supreme Court decision on the ability of private entities to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act holds immense consequences for democracy and voting rights in the United States. If the Court aligns with the Eighth Circuit’s ruling, it could essentially strip civil rights groups and individuals of a crucial tool to challenge discriminatory voting laws. The legacy of the Voting Rights Act, a cornerstone of the fight against racial discrimination in voting, hangs in the balance. As the legal landscape evolves, the decision’s impact on the accessibility and fairness of the electoral process will be profound, shaping the future of voting rights enforcement in the country.