Private citizens have always been allowed to file discrimination suits regarding voting rights. But no longer, at least in the upper Midwest:
The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-to-1 ruling, held that private plaintiffs can’t bring legal claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.... [The ruling] said the Arkansas branch of the NAACP and another organization couldn’t challenge the district lines drawn for the Arkansas House of Representatives after the 2020 census.
Interesting! And who was responsible for this change of heart?
Circuit Judge David Stras, a Trump appointee writing for the majority.... Joining him in the majority was Circuit Judge Raymond W. Gruender, a George W. Bush appointee.
What a coincidence. A couple of conservative judges overturned decades of precedent to shut down claims of racism from the NAACP. Who would have guessed?
Look for the magic words that will make it more likely that this will survive scrutiny under the current Supreme Court:
There is is. If the Supreme Court upholds this ruling, it will probably be using the "Major Questions" rule - IE "Look, if it doesn't specifically say "XYZ" on this important matter, then clearly they didn't mean it! Okay, maybe it does say that - but conservative justices don't read it that way!"
IANAL. However, I am moderately literate. I have read and re-read Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and I can't find any language that is in any way related to the issue of gerrymandering. Section 2 is specifically about individual rights to vote, NOT about how much their individual votes would bear on the ultimate outcome of the election.
And BTW, as a separate issue, it appears that Section 2, more than any other part of the Voting Rights Act, relates SPECIFICALLY to the protection of the rights of individuals, which would mean that, more than any other Section of the Act, Section 2 would entitle individuals to sue for protection of their individual rights to vote.
Can somebody point me to a subsequent change in that specific section of the law that addresses gerrymandering?
it doesn't use the word gerrymandering, but section 2 says "no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 10303(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b).". This broad language is intended to encompass a wide range of discriminatory practices, including gerrymandering, a practice which does abridge one's voting rights if the effect is to make the impact of your vote diminished or inconsequential in election outcomes. So while the VRA mentions specific issues like poll taxes, the intent was clearly not to limit it's scope only to enumerated practices.
I don't agree with the court's decision, but your quote:
Has verbiage that seems to speak entirely to being permitted to vote. Not whether or not one's vote makes a difference. It wouldn't be the first wording-fail in a piece of legislation...
i disagree. as i said, the use of the word abridgement of the right seems clearly to be in addition to denial and designed to address such things as gerrymandering. otherwise the use of the word denial would be sufficient.
"Has verbiage that seems to speak entirely to being permitted to vote. Not whether or not one's vote makes a difference."
Very Kafkaesque there. "Sure, you can cast a ballot, but we toss all ballots into a fire afterwards and just let the state legislature pick the winner, so it won't matter at all. You still got to vote though, and we didn't target you specifically on the basis of your race - we simply think nobody should have a say on who gets into office. Card says moops, too bad."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0uYJjDHeDU
IANAL either, but I'll give it a shot. I think @kahner is right in that if the law is about "voting," it's also about assuring that a vote once cast is then accorded its full proportionate weight. IE, it's about the entire act of voting in relation to determining the outcome of an election, beyond just depositing the ballot in the box.
In that sense, anything that compromises an individual's ability to cast a vote, or dilutes the weight of an individual's vote in tabulation, in any of the enumerated ways or for any of the enumerated reasons is outlawed.
Right-wingers have been trying for ages to get around this or outright get rid of it. Substituting partisan gerrymandering, which the law doesn't forbid, is (I think) NC's new hotness. In this Arkansas case the original district court months ago ruled that there's no right of private action and this circuit court sub-panel just concurred, which was kind of a surprise. Actually both rulings are surprises in that both court levels are supposedly bound by precedent, which is very clear that private actions are permitted and normal for section 2 issues.
However, it's looking like deliberately defying precedent has emerged as a competitive sport for right-wing courts lately. IIRC that's what happened in the Alabama redistricting case this summer, when SCOTUS basically said "we're willing to trash our own precedents but don't make us look like total idiots" and threw out the ruling.
So these courts in Arkansas, the 8th circuit, the ones in Alabama, seem to be trying to see if they've found the magic that'll fly with their confreres in DC. Our friend in Amarillo, Kacsmaryk, is in a class by himself. And that may be why Elmo filed his Media Matters defamation case there today.
Sounds like more of that right wing love of free speech.
I didn't read the WSJ article, but are who exactly is claiming Arkansas is in the upper Midwest?
Because the 8th Circuit starts in Arkansas and goes north. Here are the states it covers: Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, and Arkansas.
What thing of value have conservatives ever brought to public life?
I will just pour out this bottle of spoiled milk, oh drat I don't have a bucket to contain it in it just goes all over the floor, guess it's somebody else's problem now and paper towels and mops are against God's law.
So, no more private groups suing to have gun regulations declared unconstitutional? No doubt an exception will be made.
These rulings - and many others - are a direct result of the voters being too stupid to understand the relationship between their votes and the federal courts.
The voters aren't "too stupid"; they don't care or are actively hostile to the goal of the Act. What does a EuroAmerican male care about the Voting Rights Act, except that it means "those people" get to vote.
I would expect the NAACP to file for an en banc ruling that involves the entire 8th circuit, rather than this unfortunate subset, before the case goes to the voter-hating Supremes.