8th Circuit Decides To Wildly Limit Enforcement Of The Voting Rights Act

// Just when you were ready to declare the Fifth Circuit the most out of pocket federal appellate court, the Eighth Circuit says “hold my beer.”

Today, the Eighth Circuit decided in The Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. The Arkansas Board of Apportionment that individuals and organizations cannot file suit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Writing for the majority, Judge David R. Stras said there is no private right of action under that law, and “The Voting Rights Act lists only one plaintiff who can enforce § 2: the Attorney General.”

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-top-300x250" ); });

Hell, *even* the Fifth Circuit found an implied private right of action under the Voting Rights Act.

Sponsored Managing a High Volume of Acquisitions with a Lean In-House Team How a veterinary services provider optimized contract workflows with Bloomberg Law Contract Solutions From Bloomberg Law  

This… erm… unique take undermines well-established precedent under the statute, as Sophia Lin Lakin, the attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, notes, “This is a travesty for democracy, and it’s directly contrary to decades of precedent and practice. It’s quite a seachange in the way that everyone—Congress, the courts, plaintiffs, and even defendants—have thought about how the promise of Section 2 would be enforced.”

And Kareem Crayton, Senior Director for Voting Rights and Representation at the Brennan Center, says this decision is “wildly out of step with existing case law” and “radically upends the existing understanding of Section 2.” Indeed, a private right of action was very much anticipated when the Voting Rights Act was initially passed.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-middle-300x250" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-storycontent-440x100" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-in-story-youtube-1x1" ); });

Along those lines, the Circuit Chief Judge Lavenski R. Smith said in dissent the majority’s decision was an ” attempt[] to ‘predict the Supreme Court’s future decisions’ by ‘conduct[ing] a searchingly thorough examination of Section 2’s text, legislative history, and the Sandoval analysis.’ ‘Holding that Section Two does not provide a private right of action would work a major upheaval in the law, and [I am] not prepared to step down that road today.'”

Crayton notes the Chief is a Republican appointee, not a raving liberal. But the dissent demonstrates a respect for established law.

Sponsored Sponsored Managing a High Volume of Acquisitions with a Lean In-House Team How a veterinary services provider optimized contract workflows with Bloomberg Law Contract Solutions From Bloomberg Law   Sponsored The Smartfirm Playbook - Thriving In Today’s Legal Landscape Strategically using software and automation to boost efficiency and streamline operations, allowing for a laser-focus on practicing law. From Lawmatics   Sponsored Lexis+ AI: Generative AI Research That Cites Its Sources This new tool will change how you conduct legal research, offering a faster, more adaptable approach. From Ethan Beberness   Sponsored The Smartfirm Playbook - Thriving In Today’s Legal Landscape Strategically using software and automation to boost efficiency and streamline operations, allowing for a laser-focus on practicing law. From Lawmatics  

And, perhaps more to point, this private right of action was used as a justification when the Supreme Court got down to the business of gutting voting rights.

#SCOTUS in Shelby County: We don’t need preclearance to enforce the Voting Rights Act because private suits remain available to challenge specific violations of the Act directly under section 2.

Eighth Circuit: About those private suits… https://t.co/if8tw3ZZki

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) November 20, 2023

But unless/until the Supreme Court and/or the en banc Eighth Circuit rule otherwise, the people of Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota have fewer rights than they did yesterday.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-bottom-300x250" ); });

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @[email protected].

Sponsored Sponsored Pioneering Ethical, Trustworthy Generative AI For Legal Research As a longstanding leader in legal AI, LexisNexis now pioneers ethical generative AI for legal research, enabling professionals to improve outcomes while upholding responsible AI… From LexisNexis   Sponsored LawPay Pro Offers Upgraded Time And Billing Essentials AffiniPay’s latest product for the legal community, introduced earlier this year, presents a simple web-based solution for attorneys seeking seamless firm cash flow. From Above the Law   Topics

Courts, Eighth Circuit, Voting Rights Act