WASHINGTON — A divided federal appeals court ruled Monday that private individuals and groups like the NAACP do not have the ability to sue under a key section of the federal Voting Rights Act, a decision that voting rights advocates say undermines protections could further erode under the historic 1965 law. .
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in St. Louis, found that only the U.S. attorney general can enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires political maps to include districts where prevent the preferred candidates of minority groups. can win elections.
The majority said other federal laws, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, clarify when private groups can sue, but similar language is not in the voting law.
“Where those details are missing, it is not our job to fill in the gaps, except where ‘text and structure’ require it,” U.S. Circuit Judge David R. Stras wrote for the majority in an opinion joined by Judge Raymond W .Gruender. . Stras was nominated by former President Donald Trump and Gruender by former President George W. Bush.
The decision upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss a case brought by the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel after U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland was given five days to to join the lawsuit.
Chief Justice Lavenski R. Smith noted in a dissent that federal courts across the country and the U.S. Supreme Court have heard numerous cases brought by private plaintiffs under Section 2. Smith said the court “must follow existing precedent that authorizes a judicial remedy,” unless the Supreme Court or Congress decides otherwise.
“Rights so fundamental to self-government and citizenship should not depend solely on the discretion or availability of government agents for protection,” wrote Smith, another appointee of George W. Bush.
Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, called the ruling a “mockery for democracy.” She had argued the appeal on behalf of the two groups in Arkansas.
“By failing to reverse the district court’s radical decision, the Eighth Circuit has jeopardized the Voting Rights Act, casting aside critical protections that voters fought and died for,” Lakin said in a statement .
It was not immediately clear whether the groups would appeal. A statement from the ACLU said the groups were exploring their options.
Barry Jefferson, political action chair of the NAACP’s Arkansas State Conference, called the ruling “a devastating blow to the civil rights of every American and the integrity of our nation’s electoral system.”
The state NAACP chapter and public policy group had challenged the new Arkansas state House districts as diluting the influence of black voters. The state’s redistricting plan created 11 black-majority districts, which the groups said was too few. They said the state could have attracted 16 black-majority districts to better reflect the state’s demographics.
U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky noted that there was “a strong case that at least some of the contested districts” in the lawsuit violate the federal Voting Rights Act, but said he could not rule after concluding that a challenge could only be filed by the US Attorney General. .
The Justice Department has filed a “statement of interest” in the case, saying private parties can file lawsuits to enforce the Voting Rights Act.
Monday’s ruling applies only to federal courts covered by the 8th Circuit, which includes Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. Meanwhile, several pending lawsuits from private groups challenge various political maps drawn by lawmakers across the country.
A Justice Department representative declined to comment.
It’s likely the case will eventually go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the issue was raised in a 2021 opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
“I fully concur with the court’s opinion, but would point out one thing the court does not decide,” Gorsuch wrote at the time, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. “Our cases have assumed – without deciding – that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides an implied cause of action under Section 2.”
Gorsuch wrote that in that case it was not necessary for the justices to consider who could file a lawsuit. But Gorsuch and Thomas were among the dissenters in June when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in another Voting Rights Act case in favor of black voters in Alabama who objected to the state’s congressional districts.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, who was a defendant in the case, issued a statement praising Monday’s ruling.
“For far too long, courts across the country have allowed political activists to file unwarranted lawsuits in an attempt to seize control of how states administer elections and redistricting,” he said. “This decision affirms that enforcement of the Voting Rights Act should be handled by politically responsible officials and not by outside special interest groups.”
Election law experts say most lawsuits seeking to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act are filed by private plaintiffs and the Justice Department has limited resources to prosecute such cases. Some voting rights experts also pointed out the apparent contradiction in the Alabama case decided by the Supreme Court last June and Monday’s ruling by the appeals court.
“It doesn’t seem to make any sense,” said Jon Greenbaum, chief counsel for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under the Law. “If the laws were that private parties could not bring these cases, the Alabama case would never have gotten off the ground.”
Section 2 lawsuits have long been used to ensure that Black voters have adequate political representation in places with long histories of racism, including many Southern states. Racial gerrymandering has been used in drawing legislative and congressional districts to divide or spread black voters into a small number of districts so that their votes are diluted. If only the U.S. attorney general can file such cases, it could sharply limit their number and make challenges largely dependent on partisan politics.
It is unlikely that Congress will be willing to take action. Republicans have blocked recent efforts to restore protections in the Voting Rights Act that were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court a decade ago. In the 2013 decision Shelby v. Holder, justices dismantled an enforcement mechanism known as preclearance, which allowed federal review of proposed election-related changes before they could take effect in certain states and communities with a history of discrimination.
In a statement, the Congressional Black Caucus noted that private individuals and civil rights groups have succeeded in giving Black voters better representation by mounting recent challenges to congressional maps drawn by Republican lawmakers in Alabama, Louisiana and Florida.
“This appellate court decision is unwise, cannot stand, and should be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which we hope will reaffirm that citizens have a private right to bring lawsuits under Section 2 ,” the group said. .
___
Cassidy reported from Atlanta. Associated Press writers Nicholas Riccardi in Denver and Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report.
___
Associated Press coverage of race and voting receives support from the Jonathan Logan Family Foundation. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.