USA (Washington Insider Magazine) – Civil rights groups, including the ACLU, have decided not to petition the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a decision made by a federal appeals court that would severely limit the number of cases filed across the nation to uphold the protections against racial discrimination provided by a historic voting rights statute.
Background of the Case
The Arkansas Public Policy Panel and the Arkansas State Conference NAACP had faced a Friday deadline to ask the justices to hear an appeal of a lower-court’s decision holding that only the government and not private plaintiffs can pursue cases enforcing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The lawsuit concerned an attempt to overturn an Arkansas State House of Representatives redistricting plan that the groups said would have reduced Black individuals’ ability to vote.
Initial Response and Filing
In April, the groups sought additional time to prepare a petition for the Supreme Court to review the appeals court’s decision. Despite believing the decision to be incorrect, the plaintiffs opted not to proceed with the appeal.
Alternative Legal Mechanisms
According to Reuters, Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, cited an alternative mechanism available for plaintiffs within the 8th Circuit as a reason for not pursuing the appeal. This alternative involves litigation under Section 1983, a law from the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era, which gives people the power to sue in federal court when state officials violate their constitutional or statutory rights, and Welte rejected the state’s bid to dismiss the plaintiffs’ voting rights claims under that law.
Related Case in North Dakota
Lakin referenced a case involving North Dakota’s legislative redistricting plan. U.S. District Chief Judge Peter Welte ruled that the plan unlawfully diluted Native American votes. The case was brought under both the Voting Rights Act and Section 1983, and the 8th Circuit panel rejected North Dakota’s request to stay the decision, forcing the state to use a different map in the 2024 election.
Future Implications
Section 1983, by contrast, was not relied upon by the Arkansas plaintiffs in pursuing their case, a fact that U.S. Circuit Judge David Stras, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump, stressed in a January opinion concurring with the decision of the full court to not reconsider the case.