Federal Court Moves to Drastically Weaken Voting Rights Act

[cigaretteman]

A federal appeals court issued a ruling on Monday that would drastically weaken the Voting Rights Act, effectively barring private citizens and civil rights groups from filing lawsuits under a central provision of the landmark law.
The ruling, made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, found that only the federal government could bring a legal challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a crucial part of the law that prohibits election or voting practices that discriminate against Americans based on race.
The opinion is almost certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court. The court’s current conservative majority has issued several key decisions in recent years that have weakened the Voting Rights Act.

The court of appeals found that the text of the Voting Rights Act did not explicitly contain language for “a private right of action,” or the right of private citizens to file lawsuits under the law. Therefore, the court found, the right to sue would effectively lie with the government alone.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


Should the ruling stand, it would remove perhaps the most important facet of the Voting Rights Act; the majority of challenges to discriminatory laws and racial gerrymanders have come from private citizens and civil rights groups.
A Supreme Court ruling in June finding that Alabama had drawn racially discriminatory maps was brought by a number of civil rights organizations.

Loading…

www.nytimes.com

 

[Aardvark86]

A federal appeals court issued a ruling on Monday that would drastically weaken the Voting Rights Act, effectively barring private citizens and civil rights groups from filing lawsuits under a central provision of the landmark law.
The ruling, made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, found that only the federal government could bring a legal challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a crucial part of the law that prohibits election or voting practices that discriminate against Americans based on race.
The opinion is almost certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court. The court’s current conservative majority has issued several key decisions in recent years that have weakened the Voting Rights Act.

The court of appeals found that the text of the Voting Rights Act did not explicitly contain language for “a private right of action,” or the right of private citizens to file lawsuits under the law. Therefore, the court found, the right to sue would effectively lie with the government alone.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


Should the ruling stand, it would remove perhaps the most important facet of the Voting Rights Act; the majority of challenges to discriminatory laws and racial gerrymanders have come from private citizens and civil rights groups.
A Supreme Court ruling in June finding that Alabama had drawn racially discriminatory maps was brought by a number of civil rights organizations.

Loading…

www.nytimes.com

While I don't profess to be fully versed in the text of the VRA or precedent regarding private rights of action under it, I will say that the court's jurisprudence has for some time disfavored private rights of action implied from a statute itself. Obviously, there are other potentially private remedial vehicles that can be piggybacked on (eg, 1983), etc. which may provide such vehicles separate and apart from an implied right under the statute.

 

[lucas80]

So, one Federalist, Neil Gorsuch dropped a few paragraphs into one opinion, and two Federalists jumped on it to weaken a law that has been on the books for 60 years.
The Federalists are doing what they told us they would do. Overturn precedent and create law from the bench. Well, they didn't tell us that when they were being confirmed. They lied their asses of during their confirmation hearings. It was in their papers all along. It took the GOP 60 years, but they'll get to restrict to blacks and brown people from voting again.

 

[The Tradition]

So, one Federalist, Neil Gorsuch dropped a few paragraphs into one opinion, and two Federalists jumped on it to weaken a law that has been on the books for 60 years.
The Federalists are doing what they told us they would do. Overturn precedent and create law from the bench. Well, they didn't tell us that when they were being confirmed. They lied their asses of during their confirmation hearings. It was in their papers all along. It took the GOP 60 years, but they'll get to restrict to blacks and brown people from voting again.

Is there something here restricting the Department of Justice from enforcing the VRA?

No.

This would just stop nuisance lawsuits from activist... er, I mean... civil rights organizations.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

.

While I don't profess to be fully versed in the text of the VRA or precedent regarding private rights of action under it, I will say that the court's jurisprudence has for some time disfavored private rights of action implied from a statute itself. Obviously, there are other potentially private remedial vehicles that can be piggybacked on (eg, 1983), etc. which may provide such vehicles separate and apart from an implied right under the statute.

Court said in Shelby County that we don’t need DOJ pre-clearance anymore because private litigants can enforce the VRA.

Drip, drip, drip.

 

[BioHawk]

Is there something here restricting the Department of Justice from enforcing the VRA?

No.

This would just stop nuisance lawsuits from activist... er, I mean... civil rights organizations.

That some serious cognitive dissonance right here.

 

[Finance85]

So, one Federalist, Neil Gorsuch dropped a few paragraphs into one opinion, and two Federalists jumped on it to weaken a law that has been on the books for 60 years.
The Federalists are doing what they told us they would do. Overturn precedent and create law from the bench. Well, they didn't tell us that when they were being confirmed. They lied their asses of during their confirmation hearings. It was in their papers all along. It took the GOP 60 years, but they'll get to restrict to blacks and brown people from voting again.

Yes, they overturn precedents. Sometimes that's good, right?

As far as following precedents, all the current justices seem to only be inclined to cite them when they are old.

I haven't seen them create law from the bench yet, but I'm willing to learn. Can you cite some cases so I can do some research?

I don't understand why Dems think there shouldn't be common sense voting laws, like needing identification, in order to vote. Why would Dems want their vote, or any vote, diluted because of people voting illegally?

 

[Aardvark86]

.

Court said in Shelby County that we don’t need DOJ pre-clearance anymore because private litigants can enforce the VRA.

Drip, drip, drip.

there you go (though shelby was at least a little more than that)

 

[hawkland14]

So, one Federalist, Neil Gorsuch dropped a few paragraphs into one opinion, and two Federalists jumped on it to weaken a law that has been on the books for 60 years.
The Federalists are doing what they told us they would do. Overturn precedent and create law from the bench. Well, they didn't tell us that when they were being confirmed. They lied their asses of during their confirmation hearings. It was in their papers all along. It took the GOP 60 years, but they'll get to restrict to blacks and brown people from voting again.

Jim Crow 3.0?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Why would Dems want their vote, or any vote, diluted because of people voting illegally?

Could you cite evidence for this vote-diluting illegality? Many have tried...none have succeeded. Be a trailblazer.

 

[Colonoscopy]

 

[hawkland14]

Could you cite evidence for this vote-diluting illegality? Many have tried...none have succeeded. Be a trailblazer.

Could you cite any evidence that the Georgia law was equivalent to Jim Crow laws of the late 19th century?

 

[Finance85]

Could you cite evidence for this vote-diluting illegality? Many have tried...none have succeeded. Be a trailblazer.

There are election fraud cases in the news all the time. Don't be obtuse

 

[tarheelbybirth]

There are election fraud cases in the news all the time. Don't be obtuse

LOL...and seems like they're mostly GOP voters but that's irrelevant. A single illegal vote hardly "dilutes" the vote. And the vast majority of voter fraud that's caught - please read this carefully - has NOT ONE THING to do with the "fixes" demanded.

I don't understand why Dems think there shouldn't be common sense voting laws, like needing identification, in order to vote.

Felons voting under their own names isn't fixed by ID. People voting in multiple states under their own names isn't fixed by ID. Absentee voter fraud isn't fixed by ID. Fraud perpetrated by those responsible for collecting and counting votes isn't fixed by ID. Only a complete f'n idiot would try to manipulate an election through in-person voter fraud whether an ID is required or not.

What's needed is an integrated voter database that can track voters across state lines. So what does the GOP do? They PULL OUT of ERIC based on totally made-up bullshit - the only integrated voter database that really exists.

Why did they do that? They aren't even the slightest bit interested in preventing voter fraud and neither are you. You just regurgitate their talking points when all they really want to do is suppress the votes of those who vote Dem. Stop being their mindless shill.

 

[hawkland14]

LOL...and seems like they're mostly GOP voters but that's irrelevant. A single illegal vote hardly "dilutes" the vote. And the vast majority of voter fraud that's caught - please read this carefully - has NOT ONE THING to do with the "fixes" demanded.


Felons voting under their own names isn't fixed by ID. People voting in multiple states under their own names isn't fixed by ID. Absentee voter fraud isn't fixed by ID. Fraud perpetrated by those responsible for collecting and counting votes isn't fixed by ID. Only a complete f'n idiot would try to manipulate an election through in-person voter fraud whether an ID is required or not.

What's needed is an integrated voter database that can track voters across state lines. So what does the GOP do? They PULL OUT of ERIC based on totally made-up bullshit - the only integrated voter database that really exists.

Why did they do that? They aren't even the slightest bit interested in preventing voter fraud and neither are you. You just regurgitate their talking points when all they really want to do is suppress the votes of those who vote Dem. Stop being their mindless shill.

Again proof that the vote is being suppressed? These bogus claims were made with the Georgia law which led to MLB pulling the ASG out of Georgia based on Dem lies.