Attorney General Dan Rayfield, joined by a coalition of attorneys general from 18 other states, has stepped forward to defend a vital aspect of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), specifically Section 2, which guards against racial discrimination in voting. This move comes in response to a recent decision by a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which effectively barred individuals and organizations from challenging discriminatory voting policies through litigation. In an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in the case of Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, the collective of attorneys general have called for a full court rehearing, as reported by the Oregon Department of Justice.
In an assertion that underscores the foundational role of Section 2 in protecting voters' rights, Rayfield argued, "For nearly 60 years, the Voting Rights Act has protected the right to vote. Taking that power away now would strip one of our most important tools for fighting racial discrimination in our elections." Rayfield's statement was detailed in a press release by the Oregon Department of Justice. The case in question began when individual voters and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians filed a lawsuit against North Dakota's legislative map, which was found at the district court level to dilute the votes of Native Americans.
The coalition's brief points to the importance of private enforcement of the VRA, highlighting the disparity between the number of cases brought by individuals—around 400 nationwide—compared to the roughly 40 filed by the U.S. Attorney General. The argument is simple yet powerful: without a private right of action, the ability of voters to challenge potential violations is critically diminished, leaving them at the mercy of federal agencies that may lack sufficient resources to act. This concern aligns with historical precedents emphasizing the necessity of robust mechanisms for individuals to guard their own rights.
The attorneys general underscore not only the significance of direct access to the courts for affected individuals but also the deterrent value in preserving such a right. They posited that without the right to private litigation, incentives for state and local officials to adhere to the VRA in policy formation could weaken. It's a stance that resonates considering the tightening of voting laws observed in jurisdictions post a Supreme Court decision that eradicated a different section of the VRA, which had required jurisdictions with historic discrimination to gain federal pre-clearance before altering voting laws. The full list of states joining the brief was shared in the original announcement.
