In a significant blow to voting rights advocates, a federal appeals court panel has determined that only the federal government, and not citizens or groups, can bring suits under a crucial provision of the Voting Rights Act. This ruling effectively weakens the legislation and leaves it vulnerable in seven states, namely Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

The ruling, which pertains to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, means that private citizens and civil rights groups can no longer initiate lawsuits to protect voting rights in these seven states. Previously, the majority of Voting Rights Act claims were filed by individuals and advocacy organizations who bore the financial burden of legal battles. The Department of Justice, with its limited resources, typically pursued only a fraction of the cases nationwide.

Legal experts, aware of the consequences of this ruling, anticipate that it will be challenged, most likely reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, which has steadily curtailed the power of the voting law over the past decade. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, warns that if the ruling is upheld, it could deal a devastating blow to the Voting Rights Act.

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld the dismissal of a case brought by the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel challenging redistricting maps in Arkansas. The court ruled that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not grant these groups the "private right of action" necessary to bring a suit.

The groups sought to contest the redistricting efforts of the Republican-controlled Legislature in Arkansas, which created 11 majority-Black districts out of the state's 100-seat House of Representatives. Significantly, despite Arkansas being 16% Black, this move raised concerns regarding gerrymandering and the potential dilution of minority voting power.

This ruling goes against decades of established precedent, as judges have consistently assumed or explicitly acknowledged a private right of action under the Voting Rights Act. Michael Li, a redistricting expert at the Brennan Center for Justice, notes that numerous courts across the country have affirmed that Section 2 indeed includes a private right of action, with the exception of just one decision apart from this recent ruling.

While many experts anticipate that the ruling will be overturned on appeal, it currently stands as the binding law in the seven affected states. Accordingly, the repercussions of this decision extend beyond Arkansas, as it also invalidates a recent win for Native American voters in North Dakota. Just last week, a federal judge ruled that North Dakota state lawmakers had undermined the voting rights of two Native American tribes, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. With the ruling in place, the redrawing of state legislative maps, which was intended to rectify these violations, is now in doubt.

This ruling has cast a shadow over voting rights protections and raised concerns about the future of fair and equitable elections in the affected states. It underscores the urgent need for legal battles and advocacy efforts aimed at safeguarding these fundamental democratic rights. As the battle over voting rights continues, the fate of the Voting Rights Act hangs in the balance.