The Supreme Court could fundamentally alter voter laws through a gerrymandering case

A case likely headed to the Supreme Court could fundamentally alter voter laws, making it much harder for leftists to end GOP proposals like voter ID requirements, among others.

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that only the federal government, meaning no private citizens or civil rights groups, can sue under Section 2 of the voting rights

“The Court of Appeal ruled that there is no ‘private right of action’ for section 2 of the Act: which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race,” in accordance with Politician.

“After reviewing the text, history, and structure of the Voting Rights Act, the district court concluded that private parties cannot enforce Section 2,” the justices wrote. “The power of enforcement belonged solely to the Attorney General of the United States.”

Breakdown: Eighth Circuit panel holds, 2-1, that private plaintiffs cannot sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This will go to SCOTUS if the Eighth Circuit doesn’t come to the bench. https://t.co/5Lac8Ye4zl pic.twitter.com/m1dHmQNXuC

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) November 20, 2023

This is a big problem because Democrats and their allies have routinely used Section 2 to block perfectly legitimate GOP laws or proposals, such as voter ID requirements.

Not surprisingly, the ruling was made by two members of a three-member panel of all conservative judges.

“The majority opinion of the three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit based in St. Louis was drafted by Judge David Stras, a Donald Trump appointee, and was joined by Judge Raymond Gruender, a George W. Bush appointee. Chief Justice Lavenski Smith, another Bush appointee, dissented,” according to Politico.

In his dissent, Smith argued that both federal courts and the Supreme Court have considered many Section 2 cases in the past, and that the court should therefore follow “existing precedent that allows for judicial review.”

“Rights so fundamental to self-government and citizenship should not depend solely on the discretion or availability of government agents for protection,” he wrote.

Allies on the left were not satisfied with the overall ruling.

“The ruling has put the Voting Rights Act in jeopardy and is very blatantly throwing away critical protections that voters have fought so hard and died for,” Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU Voting Rights Project.

“It’s hard to overstate how important and damaging this decision would be if it were allowed to stand,” Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, wrote in a blog post Monday.

“If minority voters continue to elect the representatives of their choice, they will need private lawyers to file these lawsuits,” he added.

Sophia Lin Lakin, the director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, also cried foul, calling the ruling “a travesty for democracy.”

“This ruling is a travesty for democracy … the Eighth Circuit has put the Voting Rights Act in jeopardy, leaving aside critical protections that voters fought and died for.” – Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Projecthttps://t.co/x3qyshqRA5

— ACLU of Montana (@ACLUMT) November 21, 2023

“Not being able to reverse [a lower court’s] radical decision, the Eighth Circuit has put the Voting Rights Act in jeopardy, leaving aside critical protections that voters fought and died for,” he said in a statement.

And finally, Barry Jefferson, the political action chair of the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP, called the ruling “a devastating blow to the civil rights of all Americans and the integrity of the election system of our nation,” according to the Associated Press.

Meanwhile, Republicans were excited.

“For too long, courts across the country have allowed political activists to file meritless lawsuits to take control of how states conduct elections and redistricting,” said Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, a Republican, said in a statement.

“This decision confirms that enforcement of the Voting Rights Act should be managed by politically accountable officials and not by outside special interest groups,” he added.

Today, the Eighth Circuit became the first federal appeals court to make clear that Section 2 of the #VotingRightsAct it is not of private execution. This is a victory for our citizens and for the rule of law.

For too long, courts across the country have allowed policies… pic.twitter.com/f4oMa4IbIZ

— Attorney General Tim Griffin (@AGTimGriffin) November 20, 2023

talking with Fox Newsseveral legal experts predicted the case would head to the Supreme Court.

“Justice [Neil] Gorsuch had indicated that this is an important issue, and the Eighth Circuit has just agreed that there is no private right of action. The resolution of this matter clearly goes to the Supreme Court for resolution,” Holzman Vogel’s Jason Torchinsky told the network.

However, this is not a guaranteed result. According to Politico, either the appeal will be heard directly by the Supreme Court or for the first time in the entire 8th Circuit (versus just a three-member court).

Senior Staff Writer
[email protected]

V. Saxena is a writer for BizPac Review with a decade of experience as a professional writer and a lifetime of experience as an avid news junkie. He holds a degree in computer technology from Purdue University.

Latest posts from Vivek Saxena (see everything)

We have zero tolerance for comments that contain violence, racism, profanity, profanity, doxing, or rude behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it, click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for engaging with us in a fruitful conversation.

JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and good conversation. If you’ve commented with us before, we’ll need you to re-enter your email address for this. The public won’t see it and we won’t share it.