Ruling in North Dakota case erases path for people in 7 states to sue under the Voting Rights Act
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A federal appeals court that already has said private individuals and groups cannot sue under a key part of the federal Voting Rights Act went even further Wednesday toward blocking lawsuits over alleged racial bias in voting in seven Midwest states.
But its decisions may not be the last word, because another appeals court has ruled differently, and the U.S. Supreme Court would have to resolve the conflict. The latest ruling reversed a legal victory for two tribal nations in North Dakota that challenged a legislative redistricting plan.
The ruling shuts off a route to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through a federal civil rights law known as Section 1983, which allows people to sue state officials to vindicate their federal or constitutional rights, said Jonathan Topaz, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union Voting Rights Project. Section 1983 provides a legal vehicle to bring a lawsuit, he said.
Private individuals in past decades brought lawsuits under Section 2, but a 2023 8th Circuit ruling in an Arkansas redistricting case held that Section 2 doesn't allow for private claims. That ruling and Wednesday's only apply to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.
'These decisions together at the moment mean that no one can sue under the Voting Rights Act in the seven states that comprise the 8th Circuit, other than the U.S. Attorney General,' said Mark Gaber, senior director for redistricting at Campaign Legal Center and an attorney for the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians.
The majority opinion Wednesday said that in order to use Section 1983 to file lawsuits over voting rights, including how redistricting affects them, a private person or group must 'unambiguously' have the right to sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Appeals Judge Raymond Gruender, appointed by George W. Bush and writing for the majority, said that while the tribes 'are within the general zone of interest' of the Voting Rights Act, it is 'without the statute having unambiguously conferred an individual right.'
In a dissent, Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton, another Bush appointee, said Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does confer a right to sue and he would have upheld the tribes' legal victory on redistricting.
Wednesday's decision and the Arkansas ruling "create circuit splits' on the Section 2 and Section 1983 issues because the 8th Circuit is the only court to rule in such a way in both instances, Gaber said. The tribes and their attorneys are discussing and considering appeal options, he said.
The 2-1 ruling is a reversal for the two tribes, who had successfully challenged North Dakota's 2021 redistricting map, alleging it dilutes their voting strength.
The tribes wanted to share a single legislative district, electing a state senator and two House members, making it more likely that all three would be Native American. The 2021 plan split them into different districts. The court-ordered plan gave the tribes what they wanted.
Spirit Lake, Turtle Mountain and several tribal citizens alleged that the 2021 map drew the lines so that while Turtle Mountain members still could elect a House member, the Spirit Lake members could not.
In late 2023, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Peter Welte ruled after a trial, saying the Legislature's map 'prevents Native American voters from having an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice" in violation of the Voting Rights Act's Section 2.
In early 2024, the judge ordered a new map into place with a joint district for the two tribes. Their reservations near the Canadian border and in northeastern North Dakota, respectively, are about 60 miles (97 kilometers) apart. Later that year, voters elected three Native Americans, all Democrats, to the district's seats.
Republican Senate Majority Leader David Hogue said the 2021 boundaries the Legislature drew 'will be the boundaries." Somehow officials will have to address the seats of incumbents affected by the boundaries at question, potentially by special election, he said.
'I think the Legislature was very comfortable with the fairness of the boundaries that they drew in 2021, and I think we should endeavor to uphold those boundaries,' Hogue said.
In a statement, Secretary of State Michael Howe's office said it will now work with the 2021 map in place for the 2026 elections, 'pending any further actions.'
Republicans control North Dakota's Legislature by 83-11 in the House and 42-5 in the Senate. The state's biennial legislative session concluded earlier this month.
___
Associated Press reporter John Hanna contributed from Topeka, Kansas.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
President Donald Trump pushes ahead with his maximalist immigration campaign in face of LA protests
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump made no secret of his willingness to exert a maximalist approach to enforcing immigration laws and keeping order as he campaigned to return to the White House. The fulfillment of that pledge is now on full display in Los Angeles. The president has put hundreds of National Guard troops on the streets to quell protests over his administration's immigration raids, a deployment that state and city officials say has only inflamed tensions. Trump called up the California National Guard over the objections of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom — the first time in 60 years a president has done so — and is deploying active-duty troops to support the guard. By overriding Newsom, Trump is already going beyond what he did to respond to Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, when he warned he could send troops to contain demonstrations that turned violent if governors in the states did not act to do so themselves. Trump said in September of that year that he 'can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor' and that 'we have to go by the laws.' But now, the past and current president is moving swiftly, with little internal restraint to test the bounds of his executive authority in order to deliver on his promise of mass deportations. What remains to be seen is whether Americans will stand by him once it's operationalized nationwide, as Trump looks to secure billions from Congress to dramatically expand the country's detention and deportation operations. For now, Trump is betting that they will. 'If we didn't do the job, that place would be burning down," Trump told reporters Monday, speaking about California. 'I feel we had no choice. ... I don't want to see what happened so many times in this country.' 'A crisis of Trump's own making' The protests began to unfold Friday as federal authorities arrested immigrants in several locations throughout the sprawling city, including in the fashion district of Los Angeles and at a Home Depot. The anger over the administration's actions quickly spread, with protests in Chicago and Boston as demonstrations in the southern California city also continued Monday. But Trump and other administration officials remained unbowed, capitalizing on the images of burning cars, graffiti and Mexican flags — which, while not dominant, started to become the defining images of the unrest — to bolster their law-and-order cause. Leaders in the country's most populous state were similarly defiant. California officials moved Monday to sue the Trump administration, with the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, arguing that the deployment of troops 'trampled' on the state's sovereignty and pushing for a restraining order. The initial deployment of 300 National Guard troops was expected to quickly expand to the full 2,000 that were authorized by Trump. The state's senior Democratic senator, Alex Padilla, said in an interview that 'this is absolutely a crisis of Trump's own making.' 'There are a lot of people who are passionate about speaking up for fundamental rights and respecting due process, but the deployment of National Guard only serves to escalate tensions and the situation,' Padilla told The Associated Press. 'It's exactly what Donald Trump wanted to do.' Padilla slammed the deployment as 'counterproductive' and said the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was not advised ahead of the federalization of the National Guard. His office has also pushed the Pentagon for a justification on the deployment, and 'as far as we're told, the Department of Defense isn't sure what the mission is here," Padilla added. Candidate Trump previewed immigration strategy during campaign Much of this was predictable. During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump pledged to conduct the largest domestic deportation operation in American history to expel millions of immigrants in the country without legal status. He often praised President Dwight D. Eisenhower's military-style immigration raids, and the candidate and his advisers suggested they would have broad power to deploy troops domestically to enact Trump's far-reaching immigration and public safety goals. Trump's speedy deployment in California of troops against those whom the president has alluded to as 'insurrectionists' on social media is a sharp contrast to his decision to issue no order or formal request for National Guard troops during the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, despite his repeated and false assertions that he had made such an offer. Trump is now surrounded by officials who have no interest in constraining his power. In 2020, Trump's then-Pentagon chief publicly rebuked Trump's threat to send in troops using the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law that empowers the president to use the military within the U.S. and against American citizens. Current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signaled support on his personal X account for deploying troops to California, writing, 'The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE,' referring to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The Defense Department said Monday it is deploying about 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles to support National Guard troops already on the ground to respond to the protests. White House responds to an 'incompetent' governor Protesters over the weekend blocked off a major freeway and burned self-driving cars as police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades in clashes that encompassed several downtown blocks in Los Angeles and led to several dozen arrests. Much of the city saw no violence. But the protests prompted Trump to issue the directive Saturday mobilizing the California National Guard over Newsom's objections. The president and his top immigration aides accused the governor of mismanaging the protests, with border czar Tom Homan asserting in a Fox News interview Monday that Newsom stoked anti-ICE sentiments and waited two days to declare unlawful assembly in the city. Trump told Newsom in a phone call Friday evening to get the situation in Los Angeles under control, a White House official said. It was only when the administration felt Newsom was not restoring order in the city — and after Trump watched the situation escalate for 24 hours and White House officials saw imagery of federal law enforcement officers with lacerations and other injuries — that the president moved to deploy the Guard, according to the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations. 'He's an incompetent governor,' Trump said Monday. 'Look at the job he's doing in California. He's destroying one of our great states.' Local law enforcement officials said Los Angeles police responded as quickly as they could once the protests erupted, and Newsom repeatedly asserted that state and city authorities had the situation under control. 'Los Angeles is no stranger to demonstrations and protests and rallies and marches,' Padilla said. 'Local law enforcement knows how to handle this and has a rapport with the community and community leaders to be able to allow for that.' The aggressive moves prompted blowback from some of Trump's erstwhile allies. Ileana Garcia, a Florida state senator who in 2016 founded the group Latinas for Trump and was hired to direct Latino outreach, called the recent escalation 'unacceptable and inhumane.' 'I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings — in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims — all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal," said Garcia, referring to Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff and key architect of Trump's immigration crackdown. The tactics could be just a preview to what more could come from the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. GOP lawmakers are working to pass a massive tax-and-border package that includes billions to hire thousands of new officers for Border Patrol and for ICE. The goal, under the Trump-backed plan, is to remove 1 million immigrants without status annually and house 100,000 people in immigration detention centers.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Pentagon draws up rules on possible use of force by Marines deployed to LA protests
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon was scrambling Monday to establish rules to guide U.S. Marines who could be faced with the rare and difficult prospect of using force against citizens on American soil, now that the Trump administration is deploying active duty troops to the immigration raid protests in Los Angeles. U.S. Northern Command said it is sending 700 Marines into the Los Angeles area to protect federal property and personnel, including federal immigration agents. The 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines are coming from Twentynine Palms, California, and will augment about 2,100 National Guard soldiers in LA responding to the protests. The forces have been trained in deescalation, crowd control and standing rules for the use of force, Northern Command said. But the use of the active duty forces still raises difficult questions. The Marines are highly trained in combat and crisis response, with time in conflict zones like Syria and Afghanistan. But that is starkly different from the role they will face now: They could potentially be hit by protesters carrying gas canisters and have to quickly decide how to respond or face decisions about protecting an immigration enforcement agent from crowds. According to a U.S. official, troops will be armed with their normal service weapons but will not be carrying tear gas. They also will have protective equipment such as helmets, shields and gas masks. When troops are overseas, how they can respond to threats is outlined by the rules of engagement. At home, they are guided by standing rules for the use of force, which have to be set and agreed to by Northern Command, and then each Marine should receive a card explaining what they can and cannot do, another U.S. official said. For example, warning shots would be prohibited, according to use-of-force draft documents viewed by The Associated Press. Marines are directed to deescalate a situation whenever possible but also are authorized to act in self-defense, the documents say. The AP reviewed documents and interviewed nine U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details not yet public, about the guidance being determined for the Marines. The Pentagon also is working on a memo with clarifying language for the Marines that will lay out the steps they can take to protect federal personnel and property. Those guidelines also will include specifics on the possibility that they could temporarily detain civilians if troops are under assault or to prevent harm, the first U.S. official said. Those measures could involve detaining civilians until they can be turned over to law enforcement. Having the Marines deploy to protect federal buildings allows them to be used without invoking the Insurrection Act, one U.S. official said. The Insurrection Act allows the president to direct federal troops to conduct law enforcement functions in national emergencies. But the use of that act is extremely rare. Officials said that has not yet been done in this case and that it's not clear it will be done. President George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. If their role expands if the violence escalates, it is not clear under what legal authority they would be able to engage, said Elizabeth Goitein, a senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law. 'If in fact those Marines are laying hands on civilians, doing searches, then you have pretty powerful legal concerns,' Goitein said. 'No statutory authority Trump has invoked so far permits this.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tweeted late Saturday that he was considering deploying the Marines to respond to the unrest after getting advice earlier in the day from Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to one of the U.S. officials. Still, the tweet, which was posted to Hegseth's personal X account and not to his official government account, caught many inside the Pentagon by surprise. As late as Monday, the military's highest offices were still considering the potential ramifications. But the Marine Corps were asking broader questions, too: Do they send more senior, experienced personnel so as not to put newer, less experienced troops at risk of potentially making a judgment call on whether to use force against a civilian? What's lawful under a domestic deployment — where troops may end up in a policing role — is governed by the Fourth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which forbids seizure of persons, including temporarily restraining them, unless it could be considered reasonable under the circumstances.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Mexican police kill 4 gunmen, cross into Guatemala in dramatic border shootout
TAPACHULA, Mexico (AP) — Mexican state police killed four gunmen near the border with Guatemala, then pursued more suspects into that country in three armored police vehicles, where they engaged in a shootout in the streets of a border town. Authorities in both countries said Monday they were investigating. The rare case of Mexican law enforcement crossing the border into Guatemala on Sunday in La Mesilla was captured by onlookers in videos widely circulated online. With the border crossing a short distance in the background, armed men in ballistic vests and carrying rifles can be seen shouting at the open driver side door of a Chiapas state police armored vehicle. Suddenly, another such vehicle comes speeding through the border crossing from behind, scattering the armed men. The initial vehicle reverses back toward Mexico and a third armored police vehicle enters from a side street slamming a civilian vehicle into the side of the other armored police truck. Gunfire erupts with the police trucks and civilian vehicles getting hit by bullets. All the while, a Guatemalan military truck with a soldier in the turret, sits in the middle of the melee. It was the latest flare-up of violence along a section of the border that has become a flashpoint as rival Mexican drug cartels and their local affiliates battle for control of valuable smuggling routes for migrants, guns and drugs. Asked about the events, Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum said Monday that everything appeared to show that Mexican authorities entered Guatemala. 'They are investigating it and it is not all right that has happened,' she said. Chiapas state Gov. Eduardo Ramírez Aguilar criticized what he suggested were Guatemalan authorities protecting members of organized crime. His security chief, Oscar Aparicio Avendaño, told The Associated Press on Monday that police had used a drone to detect armed men crossing the border into Mexico. Police intercepted them, killing four, including a local gang leader. 'They try to cross (back to Guatemala) to evade justice and that's where we intercept them and there's the shooting,' Ramírez said. The police involved were part of a state police force called the Pakales, which have also been accused of wrongdoing. Across the border in Guatemala, authorities were cautious in their initial response. Guatemala Vice President Karin Herrera said Monday that the Guatemalan government was talking to Mexican authorities about what happened, 'but there are many things that must be confirmed.' Guatemala Defense Minister Henry Sáenz said none of the Guatemalan soldiers present in La Mesilla fired their weapons and that it remained under investigation. The stretch of the Mexico-Guatemala border has seen near continuous violence in the past two years as the Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation cartels battle for control. Last year, the violence spurred hundreds of Mexican residents to flee into Guatemala for safety. At other moments, towns have seen their power cut and cartel convoys parade through their communities. Sunday's shootout was occurring on a narrow street lined with businesses. Opening fire with the machine gun mounted on the Guatemalan military truck in such confines or against Mexican police could have also exacerbated the situation. For Arkel Benitez, a Guatemalan security analyst and lawyer, the problem is that what's visible in the videos circulating is, at best, passivity by Guatemalan police and soldiers and, at worst, collusion in the face of something that was an obvious threat to Guatemalan citizens. 'It's not about whether they followed protocol or not, it's more the doubt generated by a confluence of circumstances that gives the appearance of the (Guatemalan) police not being there to repel a border incursion,' he said. 'In the videos it appears the police are supporting these armed suspects.' ___ Associated Press writers Sara Melini in Guatemala City and Fabiola Sánchez in Mexico City contributed to this report. ____ Follow AP's coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at
