www.theguardian.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
2a04:4e42::367
Public Scan
URL:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/20/voting-rights-act-appeals-court-ruling
Submission: On November 22 via manual from US — Scanned from US
Submission: On November 22 via manual from US — Scanned from US
Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOMhttps://www.google.co.uk/search
<form action="https://www.google.co.uk/search" class="dcr-g8v7m4"><label for="src-component-37432" class="dcr-0">
<div class="dcr-1eoq5xi">Search input </div>
</label><input type="text" id="src-component-37432" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false" aria-describedby="" required="" name="q" placeholder="Search" data-link-name="nav2 : search" tabindex="-1" class="selectableMenuItem dcr-11nw881"><label
class="dcr-0">
<div class="dcr-1eoq5xi">google-search </div>
<div class="dcr-190ztmi"><svg width="30" viewBox="-3 -3 30 30" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" aria-hidden="true">
<path fill-rule="evenodd" clip-rule="evenodd"
d="M9.273 2c4.023 0 7.25 3.295 7.25 7.273a7.226 7.226 0 0 1-7.25 7.25C5.25 16.523 2 13.296 2 9.273 2 5.295 5.25 2 9.273 2Zm0 1.84A5.403 5.403 0 0 0 3.84 9.274c0 3 2.409 5.454 5.432 5.454 3 0 5.454-2.454 5.454-5.454 0-3.023-2.454-5.432-5.454-5.432Zm7.295 10.887L22 20.16 20.16 22l-5.433-5.432v-.932l.91-.909h.931Z">
</path>
</svg><span class="dcr-1p0hins">Search</span></div>
</label><button type="submit" aria-live="polite" aria-label="Search with Google" data-link-name="nav2 : search : submit" tabindex="-1" class="dcr-1ecm11e">
<div class="src-button-space"></div><svg width="30" viewBox="-3 -3 30 30" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" aria-hidden="true">
<path fill-rule="evenodd" clip-rule="evenodd" d="M1 12.956h18.274l-7.167 8.575.932.932L23 12.478v-.956l-9.96-9.985-.932.932 7.166 8.575H1v1.912Z"></path>
</svg>
</button><input type="hidden" name="as_sitesearch" value="www.theguardian.com"></form>
Text Content
Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation Print subscriptions Sign in Search jobs Search US edition * US edition * UK edition * Australia edition * International edition * Europe edition The Guardian - Back to homeThe Guardian SUPPORT THE GUARDIAN Fund independent journalism with $5 per month Support us Support us * News * Opinion * Sport * Culture * Lifestyle ShowMoreShow More * News * View all News * US news * World news * Environment * US politics * Ukraine * Soccer * Business * Tech * Science * Newsletters * Wellness * Opinion * View all Opinion * The Guardian view * Columnists * Letters * Opinion videos * Cartoons * Sport * View all Sport * Soccer * NFL * Tennis * MLB * MLS * NBA * NHL * F1 * Golf * Culture * View all Culture * Film * Books * Music * Art & design * TV & radio * Stage * Classical * Games * Lifestyle * View all Lifestyle * Wellness * Fashion * Food * Recipes * Love & sex * Home & garden * Health & fitness * Family * Travel * Money * Search input google-search Search * Support us * Print subscriptions US edition * UK edition * Australia edition * International edition * Europe edition * * Search jobs * Digital Archive * Guardian Puzzles app * Guardian Licensing * The Guardian app * Video * Podcasts * Pictures * Inside the Guardian * Guardian Weekly * Crosswords * Wordiply * Corrections * Facebook * Twitter * * Search jobs * Digital Archive * Guardian Puzzles app * Guardian Licensing * US * World * Environment * US Politics * Ukraine * Soccer * Business * Tech * Science * Newsletters * Wellness Voting rights groups expect the ruling to be appealed in the US supreme court. Photograph: Allison Bailey/REX/Shutterstock Voting rights groups expect the ruling to be appealed in the US supreme court. Photograph: Allison Bailey/REX/Shutterstock The fight for democracyUS voting rights COURT RULES THAT ONLY US GOVERNMENT CAN SUE TO ENFORCE VOTING RIGHTS ACT Shock ruling from Republican-appointed appeals court prevents outside groups or citizens seeking to enforce voting rights law The fight for democracy is supported by About this content Rachel Leingang Mon 20 Nov 2023 15.10 ESTLast modified on Mon 20 Nov 2023 17.00 EST * * * A federal appeals court shocked voting rights groups on Monday with a ruling that only the US government, not outside groups or citizens, could sue to enforce the Voting Rights Act’s provisions. The civil rights law, which outlaws racial discrimination as it relates to voting, has typically been enforced by lawsuits from these groups, not by the government itself. Now that the Republican-appointed eighth circuit court of appeals has made the ruling by 2-1, this “private right of action” to enforce Section 2 of the law is called into question. The ruling stemmed from a case brought by the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and Arkansas Public Policy Panel over new maps created during redistricting that the two groups allege diluted the voting power of Black voters in the state. While courts at all levels have allowed private claims seeking to enforce the voting rights law for decades, this is an “assumption that rests of flimsy footing”, the opinion written by Judge David Stras, who was appointed by Donald Trump, said. The ruling dissected the law itself, finding it did not include specific language that allows anyone aside from the attorney general to bring enforcement action. In a dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Lavenski Smith said that, though the courts may not have directly addressed the idea of private parties trying to enforce this law, it has repeatedly heard these cases, so it would follow that “existing precedent that permits citizens to seek a judicial remedy”. The ruling is not simply an esoteric question of law: it would dismantle the primary mechanism voting rights groups use to protect against racial discrimination in voting, often in the form of lawsuits challenging electoral maps. Voting rights groups expect the ruling will be appealed to the US supreme court. The eighth circuit ruling applies to the states the circuit court covers: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. Wendy Weiser, the vice-president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice, called the decision “radical” and wrote on X that it was “deeply wrong, and it goes against decades of precedent and practice”. Explore more on these topics * US voting rights * The fight for democracy * Arkansas * US politics * Law (US) * news * * * * * * Reuse this content MOST VIEWED MOST VIEWED * US * World * Environment * US Politics * Ukraine * Soccer * Business * Tech * Science * Newsletters * Wellness * News * Opinion * Sport * Culture * Lifestyle Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning Sign up for our email * About us * Help * Complaints & corrections * SecureDrop * Work for us * * Privacy policy * Cookie policy * Terms & conditions * Contact us * All topics * All writers * Digital newspaper archive * Facebook * YouTube * Instagram * LinkedIn * Twitter * Newsletters * Advertise with us * Guardian Labs * Search jobs Back to top © 2023 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. (dcr)