Latest news with #8thCircuit
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
North Dakota ruling erases path to sue under Voting Rights Act
Jack DuraAssociated Press BISMARCK, N.D. — 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 might 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 ruling 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.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal appeals court deals major blow to Voting Rights Act
A federal appeals court on Wednesday shut down the ability of private individuals to bring Voting Rights Act lawsuits challenging election policies that allegedly discriminate based on race in several states, a major blow to the civil rights law that has long been under conservative attack. The ruling, which leaves enforcement of the VRA's key provision to the US attorney general, comes as the Trump Justice Department is gutting its civil rights division and pivoting away from the traditional voting rights work. The DOJ, for instance, dropped major lawsuits previously brought against Texas and Georgia. The new ruling from the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals covers the seven midwestern states covered in the St. Louis-based Circuit. The opinion means that in those states, only the Justice Department can bring lawsuits enforcing a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, which was passed by Congress in 1965 to address racial discrimination in election policies. The 2-1 ruling from the 8th Circuit said that a separate civil rights law, known as Section 1983, did not give private individuals the right to bring VRA cases. That question had been left unanswered in a previous ruling from the circuit that said the VRA itself conferred no private right of action. Those rulings cut against decades of cases successfully brought by individual voters to challenge election policies that violate the VRA by discriminating based on race. Several of the cases traveled up to the Supreme Court and produced rulings affirming the lower court decisions in the voters' favor, supporting the long-term understanding that the VRA gave private individuals ability to enforce the law with lawsuits. While some conservative justices have questioned whether such private lawsuits could be brought under the VRA, the high court has never addressed the question directly. The 8th Circuit's Wednesday opinion, written by George W. Bush-appointee Raymond Gruender and joined by Donald Trump appointee Jonathan Kobes, concluded that Congress had not 'unambiguously' conferred a private right of action in the VRA text, while asserting that it needed to do so under Supreme Court precedent. A dissent from 8th Circuit Chief Judge Steve Colloton, a George W. Bush appointee, pushed back on that reasoning. 'Since 1982, private plaintiffs have brought more than 400 actions based on §2 that have resulted in judicial decisions. The majority concludes that all of those cases should have been dismissed because §2 of the Voting Rights Act does not confer a voting right,' Colloton wrote. The new ruling stems from a lawsuit alleging that North Dakota discriminated against Native Americans in its state legislative redistricting plan. 'If left intact, this radical decision will hobble the most important anti-discrimination voting law by leaving its enforcement to government attorneys whose ranks are currently being depleted,' Mark Graber, senior director for redistricting at Campaign Legal Center, which is representing the Native Americans, said in a statement. 'The immediate victims of today's decision are North Dakota's Native American voters, who a trial court found were subjected to a map that discriminated against them on account of race.' North Dakota's Secretary of State office, which was defending the maps, did not respond to CNN's inquiry. If they seek to appeal the ruling, the Native American voters could seek a review by the full 8th Circuit – a court made up of almost entirely of GOP appointees – or they could take it straight to the Supreme Court, and its 6-3 conservative majority. The latter path risks the gamble that the conservative majority would adopt the conclusions of the 8th Circuit panel, which would end nationwide privately brought lawsuits under the VRA's relevant provision and leave that provision's enforcement to the US attorney general alone. Meanwhile, there has been a mass exodus under the second Trump administration of career officials in the DOJ Civil Rights Division, which houses the department's voting section, and the Department has been backing out of longstanding voting rights cases. In 2013, the Supreme Court's conservative majority gutted a separate section of the VRA that required states with a history of racial discrimination in voting practices to get federal approval for changes in election policy. CNN's Ethan Cohen contributed to this report.
Winnipeg Free Press
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
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. Winnipeg Jets Game Days On Winnipeg Jets game days, hockey writers Mike McIntyre and Ken Wiebe send news, notes and quotes from the morning skate, as well as injury updates and lineup decisions. Arrives a few hours prior to puck drop. '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.
CNN
14-05-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Federal appeals court deals major blow to Voting Rights Act
A federal appeals court on Wednesday shut down the ability of private individuals to bring Voting Rights Act lawsuits challenging election policies that allegedly discriminate based on race in several states, a major blow to the civil rights law that has long been under conservative attack. The ruling, which leaves enforcement of the VRA's key provision to the US attorney general, comes as the Trump Justice Department is gutting its civil rights division and pivoting away from the traditional voting rights work. The DOJ, for instance, dropped major lawsuits previously brought against Texas and Georgia. The new ruling from the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals covers the seven midwestern states covered in the St. Louis-based Circuit. The opinion means that in those states, only the Justice Department can bring lawsuits enforcing a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, which was passed by Congress in 1965 to address racial discrimination in election policies. The 2-1 ruling from the 8th Circuit said that a separate civil rights law, known as Section 1983, did not give private individuals the right to bring VRA cases. That question had been left unanswered in a previous ruling from the circuit that said the VRA itself conferred no private right of action. Those rulings cut against decades of cases successfully brought by individual voters to challenge election policies that violate the VRA by discriminating based on race. Several of the cases traveled up to the Supreme Court and produced rulings affirming the lower court decisions in the voters' favor, supporting the long-term understanding that the VRA gave private individuals ability to enforce the law with lawsuits. While some conservative justices have questioned whether such private lawsuits could be brought under the VRA, the high court has never addressed the question directly. The 8th Circuit's Wednesday opinion, written by George W. Bush-appointee Raymond Gruender and joined by Donald Trump appointee Jonathan Kobes, concluded that Congress had not 'unambiguously' conferred a private right of action in the VRA text, while asserting that it needed to do so under Supreme Court precedent. A dissent from 8th Circuit Chief Judge Steve Colloton, a George W. Bush appointee, pushed back on that reasoning. 'Since 1982, private plaintiffs have brought more than 400 actions based on §2 that have resulted in judicial decisions. The majority concludes that all of those cases should have been dismissed because §2 of the Voting Rights Act does not confer a voting right,' Colloton wrote. The new ruling stems from a lawsuit alleging that North Dakota discriminated against Native Americans in its state legislative redistricting plan. 'If left intact, this radical decision will hobble the most important anti-discrimination voting law by leaving its enforcement to government attorneys whose ranks are currently being depleted,' Mark Graber, senior director for redistricting at Campaign Legal Center, which is representing the Native Americans, said in a statement. 'The immediate victims of today's decision are North Dakota's Native American voters, who a trial court found were subjected to a map that discriminated against them on account of race.' North Dakota's Secretary of State office, which was defending the maps, did not respond to CNN's inquiry. If they seek to appeal the ruling, the Native American voters could seek a review by the full 8th Circuit – a court made up of almost entirely of GOP appointees – or they could take it straight to the Supreme Court, and its 6-3 conservative majority. The latter path risks the gamble that the conservative majority would adopt the conclusions of the 8th Circuit panel, which would end nationwide privately brought lawsuits under the VRA's relevant provision and leave that provision's enforcement to the US attorney general alone. Meanwhile, there has been a mass exodus under the second Trump administration of career officials in the DOJ Civil Rights Division, which houses the department's voting section, and the Department has been backing out of longstanding voting rights cases. In 2013, the Supreme Court's conservative majority gutted a separate section of the VRA that required states with a history of racial discrimination in voting practices to get federal approval for changes in election policy.
CNN
14-05-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Federal appeals court deals major blow to Voting Rights Act
A federal appeals court on Wednesday shut down the ability of private individuals to bring Voting Rights Act lawsuits challenging election policies that allegedly discriminate based on race in several states, a major blow to the civil rights law that has long been under conservative attack. The ruling, which leaves enforcement of the VRA's key provision to the US attorney general, comes as the Trump Justice Department is gutting its civil rights division and pivoting away from the traditional voting rights work. The DOJ, for instance, dropped major lawsuits previously brought against Texas and Georgia. The new ruling from the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals covers the seven midwestern states covered in the St. Louis-based Circuit. The opinion means that in those states, only the Justice Department can bring lawsuits enforcing a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, which was passed by Congress in 1965 to address racial discrimination in election policies. The 2-1 ruling from the 8th Circuit said that a separate civil rights law, known as Section 1983, did not give private individuals the right to bring VRA cases. That question had been left unanswered in a previous ruling from the circuit that said the VRA itself conferred no private right of action. Those rulings cut against decades of cases successfully brought by individual voters to challenge election policies that violate the VRA by discriminating based on race. Several of the cases traveled up to the Supreme Court and produced rulings affirming the lower court decisions in the voters' favor, supporting the long-term understanding that the VRA gave private individuals ability to enforce the law with lawsuits. While some conservative justices have questioned whether such private lawsuits could be brought under the VRA, the high court has never addressed the question directly. The 8th Circuit's Wednesday opinion, written by George W. Bush-appointee Raymond Gruender and joined by Donald Trump appointee Jonathan Kobes, concluded that Congress had not 'unambiguously' conferred a private right of action in the VRA text, while asserting that it needed to do so under Supreme Court precedent. A dissent from 8th Circuit Chief Judge Steve Colloton, a George W. Bush appointee, pushed back on that reasoning. 'Since 1982, private plaintiffs have brought more than 400 actions based on §2 that have resulted in judicial decisions. The majority concludes that all of those cases should have been dismissed because §2 of the Voting Rights Act does not confer a voting right,' Colloton wrote. The new ruling stems from a lawsuit alleging that North Dakota discriminated against Native Americans in its state legislative redistricting plan. 'If left intact, this radical decision will hobble the most important anti-discrimination voting law by leaving its enforcement to government attorneys whose ranks are currently being depleted,' Mark Graber, senior director for redistricting at Campaign Legal Center, which is representing the Native Americans, said in a statement. 'The immediate victims of today's decision are North Dakota's Native American voters, who a trial court found were subjected to a map that discriminated against them on account of race.' North Dakota's Secretary of State office, which was defending the maps, did not respond to CNN's inquiry. If they seek to appeal the ruling, the Native American voters could seek a review by the full 8th Circuit – a court made up of almost entirely of GOP appointees – or they could take it straight to the Supreme Court, and its 6-3 conservative majority. The latter path risks the gamble that the conservative majority would adopt the conclusions of the 8th Circuit panel, which would end nationwide privately brought lawsuits under the VRA's relevant provision and leave that provision's enforcement to the US attorney general alone. Meanwhile, there has been a mass exodus under the second Trump administration of career officials in the DOJ Civil Rights Division, which houses the department's voting section, and the Department has been backing out of longstanding voting rights cases. In 2013, the Supreme Court's conservative majority gutted a separate section of the VRA that required states with a history of racial discrimination in voting practices to get federal approval for changes in election policy.
