Supreme Court Asked to Reinstate Private Voting Rights Lawsuits in Key Circuit
A coalition of 23 state attorneys general is urging the Supreme Court to review a controversial ruling that restricts the ability of individuals to sue over violations of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), potentially undermining decades of established legal precedent. The case, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, stems from a decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that significantly limits enforcement of Section 2 of the VRA, a critical provision designed to prevent racial discrimination in voting.
The VRA, enacted in 1965, was a landmark piece of legislation intended to dismantle barriers preventing Americans, particularly those of color, from exercising their right to vote. Section 2 specifically prohibits state and local governments from implementing voting policies that discriminate based on race. For nearly 60 years, both the U.S. Attorney General and private citizens have possessed the legal standing to challenge potentially discriminatory practices in court.
The current legal battle began in 2022, when voters and two tribes filed a lawsuit challenging a recently enacted legislative map in North Dakota. A district court initially sided with the plaintiffs, finding that the map diluted the voting power of Native Americans. However, the Eighth Circuit reversed this decision, ruling – contrary to 60 years of legal practice – that individual voters and organizations lack the authority to sue under Section 2 of the VRA. This ruling effectively eliminated private enforcement of voting rights in the seven states under the Eighth Circuit’s jurisdiction: Minnesota, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The Supreme Court has temporarily halted the implementation of the Eighth Circuit’s ruling pending further review.
“The Voting Rights Act would not be nearly as effective at preventing racial discrimination in our elections if individual voters could not sue over discriminatory election policy,” stated a leading attorney general involved in the case. “Unfortunately, the Eighth Circuit slammed the courthouse doors on voters challenging bigotry in our electoral process. This ruling is a profound risk to millions of Americans’ freedom to vote, so today, I am leading a coalition of attorneys general in asking the Supreme Court to step in and correct this injustice.”
The amicus brief filed by the coalition underscores the vital role private enforcement plays in safeguarding voting rights. Data presented in the brief reveals a stark disparity in enforcement actions: between 1982 and 2024, private citizens initiated over 90% (1379 of 1519) of all Section 2 challenges. In contrast, the U.S. Attorney General independently pursued only 7.5% (114 cases), averaging less than three cases per year. The coalition argues that the U.S. Attorney General’s limited resources make it impossible to adequately monitor and litigate voting rights violations nationwide.
Furthermore, the attorneys general contend that relying solely on the federal government for enforcement creates potential for political interference. Leaving enforcement to a single federal official raises concerns that Section 2 enforcement could fluctuate based on shifting political priorities. “Section 2 enforcement should not vary based on political administrations,” the brief asserts.
The coalition also highlights the time-sensitive nature of voting rights challenges, which often arise in the lead-up to an election. Without the ability for private citizens to quickly seek redress, voters may be forced to wait for government action that may never come, potentially disenfranchising them in the process.
The brief further emphasizes the deterrent effect of a robust private right of action. The coalition points to the aftermath of a previous Supreme Court decision that weakened the VRA’s preclearance provisions – requiring certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws – as evidence. Following that ruling, states previously subject to preclearance swiftly enacted restrictive voting laws. .
Leading the effort is Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, joined by his counterparts from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. The coalition’s appeal to the Supreme Court represents a critical juncture in the ongoing fight to protect and expand voting rights for all Americans.
