Skip to content

Attempted murder of the Voting Rights Act

That’s gotta be some kind of crime

Thomas F. Eagleton United States Courthouse in St. Louis, home to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Photo by Johnhochi  via Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0).

How will the U.S. Supreme Court take to having a lower court essentially invalidate its recent Voting Rights Act decision in Allen v. Milligan?

New York Times:

A federal appeals court moved on Monday to drastically weaken the Voting Rights Act, issuing a ruling that would effectively bar private citizens and civil rights groups from filing lawsuits under a central provision of the landmark civil rights law.

The ruling, made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, found that only the federal government could bring a legal challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a crucial part of the law that prohibits election or voting practices that discriminate against Americans based on race.

The opinion is almost certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court. The court’s current conservative majority has issued several key decisions in recent years that have weakened the Voting Rights Act. But the justices have upheld the law in other instances, including in a June ruling that found Alabama had drawn a racially discriminatory congressional map.

Yeah, that’s bullshit. For background on the Private Right of Action, see here. Democracy Docket weighs in on the Eight Circuit’s attempted erasure of the PROA under the VRA:

Now, under today’s ruling only the U.S. attorney general, who brings relatively few election-related cases each year, would be able to bring Section 2 claims in the seven states in the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.

This decision hurts voters and organizations who seek to ensure voters are fairly represented across the 8th Circuit and who will no longer be able to file Section 2 cases if and when Republicans abuse the redistricting process to draw racially discriminatory districts. As the dissent cites from experts,

Over the past forty years, there have been at least 182 successful Section 2 cases; of those 182 cases, only 15 were brought solely by the Attorney General.

It is clear that the ability of private parties to bring these lawsuits has made an insurmountable impact on the fight for fair maps. 

They’re really reaching now. Or should we say yanking the Overton Window? Who are they? Charlie Pierce checked:

It probably goes without saying but the Eighth Circuit is loaded with Republican appointees, including four lovely parting gifts from the previous administration*. Here is the roster of amici who weighed in on the side of Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders and the state of Arkansas.

Honest Elections Project; Senator Tom Cotton; State of Texas; State of Alabama; State of Florida; State of Georgia; State of Indiana; State of Kentucky; State of Louisiana; State of Mississippi; State of Missouri; State of Montana; State of Nebraska; State of Oklahoma; State of South Carolina; State of Utah.

Let’s see — Conservative dark money group, bobble-throated slapdick, Confederate state, Confederate state, Confederate state, Red state, Red state, Confederate State, Uber-Confederate state, Red state, Red state, Red state. Home office of American sedition, Mormonland. The opinion was written by Judge David Stras, one of the lovely parting gifts from Camp Runamuck. His confirmation was, as they say, rocky. In the first place, then-Judiciary chairman Senator Chuck Grassley ignored a blue slip on the nomination from then-Senator Al Franken of Minnesota and brought Stras forward anyway. This was a cynical maneuver by Grassley, who had treated the blue slip like Holy Writ during the Obama administration. Grassley’s gross hypocrisy was part of the reason why the Leadership Conference of Civil and Human Rights sent a letter to all the senators opposing Stras’ elevation to the bench. You will note from the letter that, during his time on the Minnesota Supreme Court, Stras was very fond of measures that would restrict the franchise. He was not a big fan of historic civil rights legislation in any context. From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

Stras, in his words and writings, has suggested he’d prefer that judges worry less about their “moral and ethical obligations” to the country. Stras once lamented that the Supreme Court’s “ventures into the contentious areas of social policy — such as school integration, abortion and homosexual rights” have politicized judicial nominations.

Voting and election rights attorney Marc Elias responds, “I expect virtually every other Circuit would say there is a PROA. And, I expect the Supreme Court will too.”

Doesn’t mean the fringiest of the Federalist Society won’t stop trying.

Published inUncategorized