1965
the New York Times
Federal Court Moves to Drastically Weaken Voting Rights Act
The ruling, which is almost certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court, would effectively bar private citizens and civil rights groups from suing under a key provision of the landmark law.
by Nick Corasaniti
Nov. 20, 2023
[excerpt] A federal appeals court moved on Monday to drastically weaken the Voting Rights Act, issuing a ruling that would effectively bar private citizens and civil rights groups from filing lawsuits under a central provision of the landmark civil rights 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. But the justices have upheld the law in other instances, including in a June ruling that found Alabama had drawn a racially discriminatory congressional map.
Passed in 1965, the Voting Rights Act was one of the most significant achievements of the civil rights movement, undoing decades of discriminatory Jim Crow laws and protecting against egregious racial gerrymanders.
But the law has been under legal assault almost since its inception, and court decisions through the years have hollowed out key provisions, including a requirement that states with a history of discrimination in voting obtain approval from the federal government before changing their voting laws.
The decision by the court of appeals on Monday 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.
Should the ruling stand, it would remove perhaps the most important facet of the Voting Rights Act; a majority of challenges to discriminatory laws and racial gerrymanders have come from private citizens and civil rights groups.
"It will be a devastating near-death blow to the Voting Rights Act if it remains the law," said Wendy Weiser, the director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
"Radical theories that would previously have been laughed out of court have been taken increasingly seriously by an increasingly radical judiciary."
__________________________
__________________________
Reader Comments
Adrianne
Massachusetts
Never stop your citizens from suing. Parliament stopped listening to the colonists and they took up arms instead.
Pennsylvania
Our democracy is in imminent danger.
Seattle
One step closer to the end goal of permanent minority rule.
L M Weber
Rosalia
We need to impeach judges who destroy the Voting Rights Act. They are unworthy of interpreting the law for the nation.
Elaine
In other words, slowly chip away at civil rights, prepping America for despots, autocrats and minority rule. This is beyond outrageous.
America, you in danger girl.
Aaron
Durham, North Carolina
If this ruling is upheld, then it would fall to the executive branch to bring any challenges under the voting rights act.
Under a Republican president, states could simply ignore the Voting Rights Act, and have their voting restrictions stand unchallenged as long as said voting restrictions benefitted Republicans.
That is completely unacceptable.
Indiana
What is happening to this country? Time is rapidly running out for people to wake up to the fact that we are losing our democracy. The slow, chipping away at our rights will lead to the collapse of our foundations.
The question above is rhetorical. But the threats are real.
Bryan
Seattle
10 of the 11 8th Circuit judges were appointed by Republicans. All six of the senior judges were appointed by Republicans. A Republican judiciary is just as opposed to equal voting rights as the Republican base.
Adie
Pennsylvania
Why in the world are federal rulings that affect the whole country being issued by a court whose jurisdiction includes more livestock than people?
Court shopping by partisan and religious zealots. This has to stop.
____________________________
-----------------------------------------
Where the last Comment from Pennsylvania refers to "zealots" - it makes me think of The Crown episode where Billy Graham comes to England. The young Queen and her mother sit watching TV during a broadcast of a speech by Rev. Graham.
QUEEN MOTHER
It's rare, and not entirely reassuring, to see religious certainty in someone so young.
QUEEN
He's not young; he's my age.
QUEEN MOTHER
Precisely. A child.
I think moral authority and spiritual guidance should come from someone with a little life experience. Not from someone who learned their trade selling brushes door to door in North Carolina.
QUEEN
But there's a humility to that which I like.
QUEEN MOTHER
(staring a little more closely at the television screen)
Are those people crying?
The people of Great Britain never cried during the war. Now they're weeping like children.
[Graham continues talking, getting more wound up as he goes - "I'm going to preach a gospel, not of despair, but of hope. Hope for the individual, hope for society! - hope for the world!!"]
QUEEN MOTHER
Turning out in droves for an American zealot.
QUEEN
He's not a zealot.
QUEEN MOTHER
He's shouting, darling. Only zealots shout.
-----------------------------------------
(on the TV) actor Paul Sparks as Billy Graham; in background: Claire Foy as the Queen
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment