8th Circuit blocks ‘backup theory’ for enforcing Voting Rights Act, leaving private plaintiffs without recourse
Civil Rights
8th Circuit blocks ‘backup theory’ for enforcing Voting Rights Act, leaving private plaintiffs without recourse
Voters cast their ballots for early voting at the Los Angeles County Registrar’s Office in Norwalk, California, on Nov. 5, 2018. Photo by Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images.
A federal appeals court in St. Louis has blocked an alternate path for private plaintiffs in seven states to sue to enforce racial-discrimination protections in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
In a May 14 decision, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis ruled that private plaintiffs can’t sue under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act to contest redistricting that allegedly diluted Native American voting strength.
Reuters covered the 2-1 decision.
The 8th Circuit previously ruled in 2023 that only the U.S. Department of Justice is authorized to file lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act, according to the Campaign Legal Center, one of the groups that represented the plaintiffs in the new suit.
There was no appeal of the 2023 decision, likely because of a “backup theory” that the suits could still be brought under Section 1983, according to Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, writing at the Election Law Blog.
The 8th Circuit has now “doubled down and further weakened voters’ power,” the Campaign Legal Center said in a press release. The decision is contrary to congressional intent and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, according to Mark Gaber, the center’s senior director for redistricting.
“If left intact, this radical decision will hobble the most important anti-discrimination voting law by leaving its enforcement to government attorneys whose ranks are currently being depleted,” Gaber said.
The states affected are Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.
The Campaign Legal Center is representing the Native American voters challenging the map, along with the Native American Rights Fund, the Robins Kaplan law firm and the Law Office of Bryan L. Sells.
The case is Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe.
Hat tip to How Appealing.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
