FILE - Voters in the 47th Ward arrive at the William B. Moore Manor apartments, to vote in the state's primary election, April 23, 2024, in Philadelphia. (Alejandro A. Alvarez/The Philadelphia Inquirer via AP, file)
FILE - Voters in the 47th Ward arrive at the William B. Moore Manor apartments, to vote in the state's primary election, April 23, 2024, in Philadelphia. (Alejandro A. Alvarez/The Philadelphia Inquirer via AP, file)
FILE - Whitney Cooper casts her ballot on Election Day, Nov. 5, 2024, in Canton, N.C. (AP Photo/George Walker IV, file)
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court panel on Monday ruled that private individuals and organizations cannot bring voting rights cases under a section of the law that allows others to assist voters who are blind, have disabilities or are unable to read.
It's the latest ruling from the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, saying only the government can bring lawsuits alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act. The findings upend decades of precedent and will likely be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case centered on whether an Arkansas law that limits how many voters can be assisted by one person conflicts with Section 208 of the landmark federal law.
The opinion from the three-judge panel followed the reasoning of another 8th Circuit panel in a . That opinion held that the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Conference could not bring cases under Section 2 of
“Like the provision at issue in Arkansas State Conference, we conclude the text and structure of (Section) 208 do not create a private right of action,†said the decision written by Judge L. Steven Grasz, a nominee of President Donald Trump. “Likewise, we conclude no private right of action is created by the Supremacy Clause.â€
In the previous case, the district court judge said he could not reach an opinion on the merits because the plaintiffs did not have standing under Section 2 and gave the Justice Department five days to join the case. The circuit court panel agreed with his reasoning in a 2-1 decision.
The 8th Circuit, which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota, has issued three rulings holding that individuals and private entities don't have standing to bring challenges against voting laws. The other came in May in a lawsuit over North Dakota redistricting.
In that case, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, with reservations 60 miles apart, argued that the state’s violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates.
The appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that only the U.S. Department of Justice could bring such lawsuits, and the full circuit declined to take up the case. the ruling last week while it decides whether to hear the case.
The Justice Department declined to comment on whether it would be intervening in the Arkansas case. It earlier declined to comment on the case involving the two North Dakota tribes.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin applauded the decision by the 8th Circuit panel, saying the 2009 state law revolving around voters with disabilities “protects the right to vote free from undue influence or manipulation.†In the statement, he said Monday's ruling “means that officials can continue to enforce Arkansas’s laws and voters can have confidence in our elections.â€
The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, which is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, declined to comment.
Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the Voting Rights Project for the ACLU, said she wasn't surprised by the ruling given the decisions in the earlier cases.
“I think it’s important to keep focus on the fact that the 8th Circuit’s decisions are radical and completely at odds with decades of precedent, including from the Supreme Court itself, as well as the text, history and purpose of the Voting Rights Act,†said Lakin, who was one of the attorneys in the initial Arkansas State Conference case. “Private litigants have been the engine of enforcement of the Voting Rights Act for sixty years.â€
Section 2 is considered one of the more consequential parts of the Voting Rights Act that remains intact, after a 2013 Supreme Court decision . That section required that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get approval from the federal government before changing their voting and election laws.
