Well, here it is, an outright attempt to utterly destroy the Voting Rights Act, out of the Eighth Circuit

Politics
1

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24172347-22-1395_documents

Opinion of the Court and dissent in Arkansas State Conference NAACP; Arkansas Public Policy Panel Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment; Sarah Huckabee Sanders, in her official capacity as the Governor of Arkansas Chairman of the Arkansas Board of Apportionment; John Thurston, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of Arkansas and as a member of the Arkansas Board of Apportionment; Tim Griffin, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas and as a member of the Arkansas Board of Apportionment; State of Arkansas Defendants - Appellees. The United States of America participated as amicus curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs - Appellants.

The actual opinion begins on page 5 of the above linked PDF.

This ruling is an atrocity and unless promptly overturned by the Supreme Court, will result in an absolute catastrophe for voting rights.

Regardless of the diarrhea spewed by the majority in this Opinion (and by the trial Judge in dismissing the original complaint), the Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is most assuredly enforceable by any aggrieved citizen or group and was intended by Congress to be enforceable by any aggrieved citizen or group. In addition, of course, of being enforceable by the United States Department of Justice.

Citizens and groups have been helping to enforce the Section 2 of the VRA when the ink was still wet on that legislation.

This decision is an outright lie and an outright attempt to destroy the VRA by those that hate its very existence.

The Supreme Court should not only reverse, it should SUMMARILY reverse without holding arguments and it should rebuke the Judges of the majority in this decision and the trial court judge.

This is not just a wrong decision.

This is infamously wrong on the very scale that Dred Scott v Sandford was wrong.

2 Likes
2

I see nothing wrong with Honest Elections Project and what they’re attempting to do here…unless someone here can change my mind but from what I can tell election integrity is important IMO.

2 Likes
3

Mmmmmmm.

This could be interesting.

1 Like
4

I am not sure the Honest Elections Project is involved in this case?

Perhaps as amicus curiae.

In any event, they have sued in the past under Section 2, so it would seem illogical for them to side with defendants in this case.

1 Like
5

I went to the actual statute. It repeatedly refers to its applicability in suits initiated by the attorney general and never hints at another party bringing a suit. There is no ambiguity.
Has the Supreme Court ever ruled in an action under this statute based on a case that was initiated by a party other than the attorney general?
Why doesn’t the attorney general simply join this case and make the issue moot?
And if that isn’t satisfactory, amend the statute so that other interested parties can initiate a suit.

2 Likes
6

oh there you go, actually reading the law instead of just letting your fee fees run

1 Like
7

I am well familiar with the text of the statute myself.

However, there is the long held doctrine of implied right of action, upheld many times by the Supreme Court, including in relation to the Voting Rights Act in relation to Sections 2, 5 & 10 in the decision of Morse v Republican Party of Virginia in 1996.

The historical record is completely in favor of an implied right of action in regards to the Voting Rights Act. Private actions under the VRA commenced almost before the ink was dry on the VRA. Congress has never attempted to restrain private action under the VRA, even when there was a large majority capable of taking action. Congress’s complete silence, can, in itself, be read as Congressional intent.

But even outside of that, the Federal Courts have long held that implied private rights of action exist. In fact, the Process Acts of 1789 and 1792 created a broad common law right of action for private citizens to under Federal Statute.

On the contrary, if Congress does NOT want a private right of action to exist, they typically say so in as many words, explicitly barring a private right of action.

In the absence of an explicit bar to private action, an implied right of private action should be accepted.

But even further than that.

The VRA explicitly enforces the 14th & 15th Amendments (as well as later voting rights amendments and the anti-poll tax amendment).

Voting is a fundamental right. Citizens clearly have the ability to sue to enforce the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

The 14th & 15th Amendments protect rights even more important than the 1st and 2nd Amendments (not to mention extending the protection of those two amendments against the States).

It is absolutely ludicrous to even dream that the VRA is not fully enforceable through private right of action, in addition to government action.

Justice Thomas is a fan of the historical record. You cannot abide by the historical record without accepting an implied right of private action under the VRA.

1 Like
8

And there’s the problem.

1 Like
10

Morse was decided 5-4, with four saying there was no personal right granted. We can all read the arguments one way or the other, though thanks for summarizing the side with which you agree. Obviously, the Appellate court liked the dissent. We will see whether the Supreme Court agrees.
But it’s not like the Attorney General couldn’t enter in.

1 Like
11

no it can’t, and no court would ever find that.

1 Like
12

Excellent example of the more legislation and courts â– â– â– â–  with a basic function like voting the less trust we the people have in the integrity of the current system.

13

This article from The Daily Signal, the media outlet of the Heritage Organization (about as conservative as you can get) indicates they strongly believe the Supreme Court will reverse the 8th Circuit. They note the 5th Circuit has ruled that there is a private right of action implicit in the Voting Rights Act, so a circuit split exists and as we know, the 5th Circuit is a highly conservative circuit.

More notably, Justice Alito has previously rejected the notion that there is no private right of action implicit in the VRA.

Only two current Justices have shown a sign of support for eliminating the implicit right of action, those being Thomas and Gorsuch.

Without Alito being onboard, I see almost zero chance of the Supreme Court upholding the 8th Circuit.