In a significant blow to voting rights advocates, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a ruling on Monday that would effectively bar private citizens and civil rights groups from filing lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This provision of the landmark civil rights law prohibits discriminatory voting practices based on race. The court's 2-1 decision found that only the federal government, specifically the U.S. attorney general, can bring a legal challenge under Section 2.

The majority opinion, written by U.S. Circuit Judge David R. Stras and joined by Judge Raymond W. Gruender, argued that the language of the Voting Rights Act does not explicitly provide for a "private right of action." They emphasized that while other federal laws, such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, specify when private groups can sue, the voting law does not contain similar wording. Therefore, the court concluded that it is not their role to fill in the gaps unless the "text and structure" of the law require it.

This decision affirms a lower judge's dismissal of a case brought by the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel. The organizations had sought to challenge racially gerrymandered districts in the state. However, the court gave U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland five days to join the lawsuit before making its final ruling. Neither the NAACP nor the Arkansas Public Policy Panel immediately commented on the decision.

Chief Judge Lavenski R. Smith issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that existing precedent allows for private plaintiffs to pursue legal remedies under Section 2. Smith contended that safeguarding fundamental rights related to self-government and citizenship should not solely rely on the discretion or availability of government agents for protection.

It is important to note that the court's ruling only applies to federal courts within the Eighth Circuit, which includes Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. However, this decision could have broader implications for voting rights litigation across the country.

The ruling comes at a time when there are several pending lawsuits challenging political maps drawn by legislators nationwide. Additionally, it adds to the growing concerns about the erosion of protections provided by the Voting Rights Act, which was a significant achievement of the civil rights movement in 1965. Over the years, court decisions have weakened key provisions of the law, including the requirement for states with a history of voting discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing their voting laws.

The decision by the Eighth Circuit is almost certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which has a current conservative majority. In recent years, the Supreme Court has issued several rulings that have weakened the Voting Rights Act. However, the court has also upheld the law in certain cases, including a June ruling that found Alabama had engaged in racially discriminatory redistricting.

Wendy Weiser, the director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, described the ruling as a "devastating near-death blow" to the Voting Rights Act. She expressed hope that the decision would not stand based on decades of legal precedent and recent Supreme Court rulings. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has played a crucial role in many civil rights and voting rights cases, allowing private citizens and civil rights organizations to challenge discriminatory laws and gerrymandering.

Conservative legal scholars, however, welcomed the decision, arguing that it would prevent the Voting Rights Act from being used as a partisan weapon against election integrity laws and redistricting practices. Jason Snead, the executive director of the Honest Elections Project, a conservative group, stated that the decision preserves the Voting Rights Act as a tool to prevent actual discrimination and disenfranchisement.

The fight over voting rights has intensified since the 2020 election, with Republican-led state legislatures enacting new restrictions on voting. This latest ruling adds to the concerns about the future of voting rights and the ability of private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory practices. Sophia Lin Lakin, the director of the Voting Rights Project at the ACLU, called the decision a "travesty for democracy" and warned that it jeopardizes critical protections that voters have fought for throughout history.