Supreme Court Sidesteps Ruling on Private Enforcement of Voting Rights Act

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a brief, unsigned order that declines to resolve a critical legal question regarding the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. By sending cases concerning Mississippi and North Dakota state legislative maps back to lower courts, the justices have effectively avoided a definitive ruling on whether private individuals and advocacy groups possess a “private right of action” to enforce Section 2 of the landmark law.

The Legal Question: Private Right of Action

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has historically served as a primary tool for voters and civil rights organizations to challenge election procedures and district maps that may dilute the political power of minority voters. For decades, these entities have initiated hundreds of lawsuits to protect voting access. However, in recent challenges involving Mississippi and North Dakota, officials have argued that the statute does not grant private parties the right to sue, suggesting that enforcement authority should rest solely with the U.S. Attorney General.

Legal experts observe that if courts were to adopt the position that only the federal government can bring such challenges, it would significantly reduce the volume of litigation aimed at ensuring compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

Court’s Recent Procedural Move

In its Monday order, the Supreme Court vacated lower court rulings in the Mississippi and North Dakota cases, directing those courts to reconsider their decisions in light of the high court’s April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. That earlier decision addressed protections against racial discrimination in redistricting.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the majority’s decision to send the cases back. In her dissent, she noted that the Louisiana v. Callais ruling did not resolve the question of whether private individuals or groups are authorized to enforce Section 2. She stated she saw no basis for vacating the previous lower court judgments.

Ongoing Challenges to Voting Rights Enforcement

The uncertainty surrounding private enforcement extends beyond Section 2. Another provision, Section 208, which allows voters with disabilities or literacy barriers to receive assistance from a person of their choice, is also facing legal scrutiny. A panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently determined that private parties cannot sue to enforce Section 208, and that same court has previously ruled against a private right of action under Section 2 in the North Dakota redistricting litigation.

Chief Judge Steven Colloton, dissenting from the 8th Circuit’s decision not to review the Arkansas case, expressed concern that the court is following a “regrettable path of rendering unenforceable, in this circuit alone, the voting rights law that many have considered ‘the most successful civil rights statute in the history of the Nation.'”

Key Takeaways

• Unresolved Authority: The Supreme Court has yet to rule on whether private citizens can bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
• Procedural Delay: By remanding cases to lower courts, the Supreme Court has temporarily avoided a major decision on the scope of private enforcement.
• Section 208 Vulnerability: Similar questions regarding private enforcement are currently impacting the application of Section 208, which protects voters needing assistance.
• Judicial Dissent: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Chief Judge Steven Colloton have both highlighted the potential consequences of restricting the ability of private groups to uphold these civil rights protections.

As the legal landscape continues to shift, the Supreme Court is expected to weigh whether to take up the pending Arkansas case, which could force a clearer resolution on the enforceability of these long-standing voting protections.