In a significant blow to the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, a federal appeals court has ruled against private entities bringing lawsuits under a key provision of the landmark civil rights law. The decision, which emerged from an Arkansas redistricting case, has the potential to weaken the already dwindling strength of the Voting Rights Act, enacted in 1965 to combat racial discrimination in elections.

The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling, stated that the language and structure of the voting rights statute do not grant private plaintiffs the authority to sue under Section 2. This decision aligns with a 2022 ruling by a Trump-appointed federal judge from Arkansas, which stated that only the US Justice Department can bring Section 2 lawsuits.

This court ruling, however, contradicts long-standing legal practice. Historically, the majority of cases under the Voting Rights Act have been brought by private plaintiffs. As the Justice Department faces resource constraints and other limitations, it can typically only initiate a few of these lawsuits each year, making the private lawsuits crucial for upholding the Voting Rights Act.

Various organizations and experts have criticized the impact of this ruling on individuals' ability to combat discrimination. Paul Smith, senior vice president of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, argued that eliminating the right to sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act goes against "settled law, common sense, and any basic concept of fairness." He emphasized the importance of allowing individuals to fight back in court when the government discriminates against them.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, highlighted the role of private plaintiffs in ensuring widespread protection. With the Justice Department's voting section unable to be present in all areas simultaneously, private lawsuits have leveled the playing field, ensuring equal protection for residents across the nation.

The case at the center of this ruling originated from the Arkansas chapter of the NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, who challenged Arkansas' state House map. The immediate impact of this ruling extends to the seven states within the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

As the 2024 presidential campaign intensifies, this ruling comes at a time when voting procedures remain a contentious issue. Since the 2020 presidential election, allegations of election fraud made by former President Donald Trump have fueled political battles in various states.

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, a Republican, applauded the decision, viewing it as a defense against "meritless" challenges to states' decisions regarding redistricting and election conduct. Griffin emphasized that politically accountable officials should handle the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, rather than outside interest groups.

The dissenting opinion by Chief Circuit Judge Lavenski Smith, a George W. Bush appointee, emphasized the importance of protecting fundamental rights without relying solely on the discretion or availability of government agents. Smith noted that in the past four decades, there have been 182 successful Section 2 cases, with only 15 initiated solely by the Justice Department.

While an appeal of this ruling could be presented to the full 8th Circuit, it is anticipated that the case will ultimately reach the Supreme Court, particularly because a panel from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals recently arrived at a different conclusion. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the use of Section 2 in a high-profile Alabama redistricting case, surprising many legal observers who recollected the court weakening the law in 2013.

As the effects of this court ruling reverberate, the protection of voting rights and the future scope of the Voting Rights Act necessitate further legal deliberation and potential Supreme Court intervention.