In a significant ruling, a panel from the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals has severely restricted a traditional approach to enforcing the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA). In a narrow 2-1 decision, Judges Raymond Gruender and Jonathan Kobes concluded that § 2 of the VRA does not afford a “private right of action for alleged violations.” This decision is poised to impact how voting rights are defended in court going forward, potentially limiting the ability of private parties to challenge practices that dilute voting power.
The case, which was brought before the court by the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe, involved an allegation that North Dakota’s redistricting plan violated § 2 of the VRA by undermining the voting strength of Native American communities. The lower federal court initially sided with these groups, determining that the redistricting plan indeed breached the VRA. However, upon appeal, North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe argued that these tribes and other Native American representatives lacked the authority to assert a private claim under the relevant section of the Act.
In his dissent, Chief Judge Steven Colloton observed that since 1982, private plaintiffs have successfully brought over 400 cases under § 2, which have culminated in judicial decisions. He argued that the majority’s position that these should have been dismissed was inconsistent with precedent, saying “I conclude that § 2 confers an individual right, and that the enforcement scheme described in the Act is not incompatible with private enforcement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”
This decision arrives at a critical juncture, as it follows a lower court ruling that forced North Dakota to accept a legislative districting plan proposed by the plaintiffs to replace the disputed one, which was used in the 2024 election cycle. Further details on this and other implications of the ruling can be found in the full article on JURIST.