Boelter pleads guilty in lawmaker attacks, agrees to two life sentences

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

By declining to take up a lower court ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt another blow to the Voting Rights Act.

 that it will not review an Arkansas-based lawsuit, leaving in place 

 that ends a long-used tool for protecting minority voters from discrimination under the landmark law in seven mainly Midwestern states.

That ruling found that in the states covered by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota — private individuals and groups do not have the right to sue to enforce what's known as 

, which generally allows voters with a disability or inability to read or write to get help with voting from a person of their choice.

The Supreme Court's move comes almost two months after its conservative supermajority 

 that further weakened the Voting Rights Act, setting off a groundswell in redistricting across the country.

At issue in the case: a ‘private right of action’

 against racial discrimination in redistricting, the high court decided 

on what the legal world calls a "private right of action," sending back to lower courts two cases brought by Black voters in Mississippi and Native American voters in North Dakota.

For decades, enforcement of these sections of the Voting Rights Act has mainly been driven by lawsuits by private individuals and groups.

But after conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch 

issued a single-paragraph opinion in 2021

 questioning a private right of action, Republican officials in multiple states have raised a novel legal argument: Only the U.S. attorney general, they contend, has the right to bring lawsuits under these parts of the Voting Rights Act.

Such an interpretation of the law is likely to lead to a dramatic decline in voting rights lawsuits because of the Justice Department's limited resources and 

shifting priorities under different presidential administrations

The case that the justices decided not to take up was brought by the immigrant advocacy group Arkansas United, which has provided Spanish-language interpreters at polling sites to assist voters with limited English proficiency. The group challenged 

 that bans a person who is not a poll worker from helping more than six voters cast ballots. In 2022, a 

 that the state law violates Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. But after GOP state officials appealed, an 

 last year that private groups, like Arkansas United, do not have the right to bring this kind of lawsuit, partly because such a right is not explicitly spelled out in the words of the Voting Rights Act.

So far, the 8th Circuit — which also found that there is no private right of action under Section 2 — is the only federal appeals court to break with decades of precedent on this legal issue.

In a statement, Arkansas' Republican Attorney General Tim Griffin called the Supreme Court's refusal to take up the 8th Circuit panel's ruling "a victory for the state" and applauded the high court for "following the plain meaning of the language in the Voting Rights Act."

The Supreme Court may take up this issue in a future case

 the high court released Monday did not explain why the justices decided not to review the 8th Circuit panel's ruling in the Arkansas case.

 last month, Republican officials in Arkansas pointed out that no other federal appeals court has issued a ruling that specifically addresses whether private groups and individuals can sue under Section 208. That, the Arkansas Republican officials argued, means there is no disagreement between appeals courts for the Supreme Court to resolve.

Arkansas United's attorneys at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, however, countered that there is a "clear conflict between the Eighth Circuit's decision and the unbroken line of cases allowing private litigants to vindicate their rights under Section 208."

"The limited case law regarding private enforcement of Section 208 does not mean that the circuit split is nonexistent, or that the issue is unimportant," the MALDEF attorneys wrote in 

. "Instead, it demonstrates just how much of an anomaly the Eighth Circuit's decision is."

Thomas Saenz, MALDEF's president and general counsel, tells NPR that the civil rights group now plans to eventually ask the Supreme Court to review a private right of action under Section 208 through a 

lawsuit, which was put on hold while the appeals process for the Arkansas case played out.

The case led by Missouri Protection and Advocacy Services, which advocates for voters with disabilities, challenges a 

 that bans a person from helping more than one disabled voter or voter who cannot read or write for each election, unless the person providing assistance is a poll worker or the voter's immediate family member.

"We will attempt to move it forward, and these precedents will be cited to stop us," Saenz says. "We will move up and hope that the Supreme Court will see that it needs to stop this situation where only one circuit in the entire country has taken a contrary view to everyone else and foreclosed private enforcement of the Voting Rights Act."

Politics and Government News

Homepage

Hansi Lo Wang

Author

The Supreme Court has left in place a ruling that strikes down a key tool for enforcing Voting Rights Act protections for voters with a disability or an inability to read or write in seven states.

Supreme Court allows ruling that ends tool to protect minority voters in 7 states, including Minnesota

Go Deeper.

Like this?

News you can use in your inbox