Latest news with #Section2
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
North Dakota tribes ask circuit judges for rehearing of voting rights case
Jamie Azure, chair of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, speaks during the Tribal Leaders Summit in Bismarck on Sept. 4, 2024. Turtle Mountain, Spirit Lake Nation and three tribal citizens are challenging a ruling in a voting rights case. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Spirit Lake Nation and three tribal citizens this week asked the full 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to review a three-judge panel's finding that they lack standing to bring a voting discrimination case against the state of North Dakota. In a 2-1 decision earlier this month, the panel overruled a North Dakota federal district court's decision that a redistricting plan adopted by the state in 2021 diluted the voting power of Native voters. 'Turtle Mountain fought hard for a fair and legal map. When the state draws unlawful districts, Courts must step in to protect voters — not pave the way for injustice,' Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Chairman Jamie Azure said in a statement published by the Campaign Legal Center, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs in the suit. 'We will continue to fight for fair representation.' Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case The panel's decision didn't speak to whether the map itself was discriminatory; instead, the judges found that private individuals cannot use a key federal civil rights law as a vehicle to file cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which outlaws race-based voting discrimination. The panel in its ruling sent the case back to North Dakota U.S. District Judge Peter Welte with instructions to dismiss the lawsuit. If its ruling stands, North Dakota would revert back to the 2021 map. But if the plaintiffs' request for an en banc rehearing is granted, the case would go before all 11 judges on the 8th Circuit for review. 'Section 2 is the foundational statute that Congress enacted to fight the scourge of racial discrimination in voting, but citizens in this circuit can no longer enforce the right it provides them,' the plaintiffs argue in a brief urging the full appellate court to consider the case. Private individuals and groups previously could file discrimination lawsuits against governments under just Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act without having to invoke Section 1983, a separate civil rights statute. Then, the 8th Circuit in a controversial 2023 ruling on an Arkansas voting rights case found that Section 2 alone doesn't give private parties the right to sue. Instead, the circuit declared that it is the responsibility of the U.S. Attorney General to file Section 2 discrimination cases. Tribes, state argue redistricting case to federal appeals court For more than a year, the question remained open as to whether Section 1983 offered a viable alternative for bringing such Voting Rights Act claims. In a May 14 ruling, the three-judge panel decided it does not. In a majority opinion, the panel wrote that the language of the Voting Rights Act indicates that Congress didn't intend for citizens to file race discrimination claims through Section 1983. The lone dissenting judge on the panel — Chief Judge Steven Colloton — noted in his opinion that private plaintiffs have brought more than 400 actions under Section 2 since 1982. The plaintiffs in their brief point out that the 8th Circuit is the only appellate circuit in the country to rule that Section 2 cannot be enforced through lawsuits brought by private citizens. The circuit includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska and Arkansas. 'Outside of this circuit, every American citizen can rely on an unbroken line of Supreme Court and circuit precedent to enforce the individual rights given to them by Congress in the Voting Rights Act,' their filing states. 'But as a result of the panel decision here, and the prior decision in Arkansas, American citizens in this circuit are denied that right.' The lawsuit was triggered by a redistricting plan adopted by the North Dakota Legislature in 2021 that placed the Turtle Mountain and Spirit Lake reservations in new districts. U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte in 2023 ruled that the new map was discriminatory and ordered the Legislature to implement a new map that placed the reservations in the same voting district. Three Native American lawmakers from that district were elected in 2024: Sen. Richard Marcellais and Rep. Jayme Davis — both citizens of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa — and Rep. Collette Brown, a citizen of the Spirit Lake Nation and plaintiff in the lawsuit. 'The fair map we secured led to a historic first — a Spirit Lake Nation member elected to the North Dakota Legislature,' Spirit Lake Nation Chairperson Lonna Jackson-Street said in a Wednesday statement published by the Campaign Legal Center, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs in the case. 'This decision threatens that progress and weakens our voice in state government.' Marcellais had previously served 15 years in the statehouse until he lost his bid for reelection in 2022. He was reelected in 2024. Davis was first elected in 2022, then reelected last year. If the 2021 map is reinstated, three state lawmakers would move to different districts, according to the North Dakota Secretary of State's Office. Rep. Colette Brown, D-Warwick, would go from representing District 9 to District 15. Rep. Donna Henderson, R-Calvin, would switch from District 15 to District 9B, while Sen. Kent Weston, R-Sarles, would switch from District 15 to District 9. They would all have to seek reelection in 2026. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Irish Independent
29-05-2025
- Irish Independent
Louth woman (20) bit Garda during early morning incident outside nightclub
Anete Zukule (20), Glenwood, Dublin Road, Dundalk, pleaded guilty to two counts of Section 2 assault, resisting a Garda, being intoxicated in public and using or engaging in threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour or words, in Park Street. It was stated on her behalf that she deeply regretted what occurred and wanted to apologise directly to the officer. She had mental health problems. Judge Nicola Andrews remanded Ms Zukule on continuing bail to November 19 for a community service assessment. Court presenter Sgt Letitia McConnell said that at 5am on October 1, 2022, Gardaí were flagged down outside Ridley's nightclub. A woman was trying to gain entry. She called one of the officers a 'f**king c**t' and shouted that she 'wasn't f**king drunk'. The defendant resisted and 'attempted to bite a number of Gardaí'. She did bite one of the officers and tried to gouge the eye of another. There were two previous Public Order charges.
The Citizen
20-05-2025
- The Citizen
Alexandra's ‘fearless' Captain honoured at a memorial service in Alexandra
Police officials, family and community members gathered to pay tribute to the late Captain Vusimuzi Mngoma. The memorial service for Alexandra's dedicated and fearless police officer was held at the Universal Church of Alexandra on May 14. Station Commander Brigadier Vusimuzi Ngubane spoke emotionally about Mngoma, describing him as a brother to them. He recounted how Mngoma had been a pillar of strength in the police force since 1992, earning a promotion at Midrand and returning to serve the community that needed him most. 'We brought him back here, telling him the people needed him. He was appointed to the most difficult sectors. Some people were trigger-happy, and Ngoma was assisting with that. If something happened in Sector 2, Captain Mngoma would come to my office and inform me.' Read more: Alexandra police apprehend Masakhane Clinic baby abduction suspect The suddenness of his passing left many in shock. 'I received an SMS that he was in the ICU. Just days before, he was fine,' Ngubane shared. Colleagues remembered Mngoma as a disciplined and courageous officer who never abused his power. He was widely known as the guardian of Section 2 in Alexandra. Reflecting on his courage, some colleagues said he would enter the most dangerous and feared communities and arrest criminals without hesitation. Also read: Last Gado Civic Movement hands memorandum to Alex police Ngubane said they have lost a soldier and urged Sector 2 residents not to lose hope because there were many soldiers. He assured the community that while Mngoma's shoes would be hard to fill, the police would do their best to support his successor. 'We will try by all means to find someone, not that he will be like Mngoma, but we will support him.' He also praised Mngoma's integrity, stating, 'I never had a complaint about his involvement in corruption. That is what we want, police with a passion for their work… We will miss him dearly.' In his closing remarks, Ngubane thanked Mngoma's family for 'lending' him to the police force from 1992, and further gave them words of comfort. Follow us on our Whatsapp channel, Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok for the latest updates and inspiration! Have a story idea? We'd love to hear from you – join our WhatsApp group and share your thoughts! Related article: Alex police station marred by allegations of corruption At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Two Supreme Court Justices Invited an All-Out Assault on the Voting Rights Act. Now It's Here.
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. On Wednesday, the Voting Rights Act suffered the second shot in a brutal new one-two punch, and some worry it could lead to a knockout blow at the Supreme Court. The Trump Department of Justice had already recently ended long-running bipartisan enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the part of the law that assures fair representation of minority voters in congressional, state, and local redistricting (among other things). Assistant attorney general for the civil rights division Harmeet Dhillon has signaled a pivot away from protecting minority voters and toward chasing phantom claims of voter fraud and pursuing other Trump-driven regressive election changes. These moves had already significantly hampered enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. Now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has, for the second time, held that minority voters do not have the authority to sue states and localities directly themselves for Section 2 violations. It's a ruling that unless overturned will effectively end Voting Rights Act enforcement in the seven states comprising the 8th Circuit. What's worse, two Supreme Court justices already expressed agreement with the position of the 8th Circuit. If three more justices agree, Section 2 would be a dead letter throughout the United States, at least during Republican administrations. It's worth explaining the history of the Voting Rights Act's enforcement mechanisms in order to clarify why this latest ruling is not just a devastating blow to the law, but also an entirely ahistorical judicial power grab. When Congress passes laws protecting against discrimination, one question that arises is who may sue to enforce them. Sometimes a statute is clear that it may be enforced only by the federal government through the Department of Justice. Other statutes can be enforced by people who have been harmed under the law. When individuals or groups have the power to sue to enforce federal law, the term used is that the statute includes a 'private right of action.' Since 1982, when Congress passed the current version of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, courts have understood that private plaintiffs have the right to sue to enforce it. And such suits make up the vast majority of Section 2 suits that are brought. As the Guardian explained, 'Since 1982, there have been 466 Section 2 cases. Only 18 were brought by the Department of Justice.' When it passed the revision to the law more than 40 years ago, Congress surely understood it to mean that private plaintiffs could sue. In 2006, when Congress revamped the Voting Rights Act overall, it knew that the lion's share of Section 2 suits were brought by private plaintiffs and it did not change anything in Section 2 related to who could sue. So it was a surprise when the 8th Circuit in 2023 became the first court to hold that private plaintiffs did not have the right to sue to protect their voting rights. Other courts had reached contrary conclusions, but the 8th Circuit followed signals from two justices on the Supreme Court regularly hostile to voting rights claims—Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas—that Section 2 contains no private right of action. Plaintiffs did not try to take that 2023 case to the Supreme Court to try to get the ruling reversed, perhaps because voting rights lawyers had another theory for how plaintiffs could sue to enforce Section 2: by doing so through another federal statute, 42 U.S.C. section 1983, which allows people to sue for certain violations by state and local officials of civil rights. In a 2–1 ruling on Wednesday, the 8th Circuit shut down this other route to allowing private plaintiffs to sue to enforce Section 2. Like the 2023 version, the court's Wednesday ruling is ridiculous, rejecting Congress' long understanding that private plaintiffs can bring these suits. Chief Judge Steven Colloton, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his dissent in the case, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, that the 8th Circuit was wrong to be the only court to deprive plaintiffs of this effective tool: '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. Consistent with all other courts to address the issue, I conclude that § 2 confers an individual right and that the enforcement scheme described in the Act is not incompatible with private enforcement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.' Plaintiffs may now try to take this case to the entire 8th Circuit to reconsider, but that did not work with an appeal of the 2023 case. Otherwise, plaintiffs will face a difficult choice. If plaintiffs leave this case as is, Section 2 will be a dead letter in the states covered by the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. If the Supreme Court takes the case, there are already two votes likely to side with the 8th Circuit. If a majority embraces the bad reasoning of the 8th Circuit, Section 2 would be dead throughout the entire country. Of course, one hopes that a Supreme Court majority would reject this attempt to shut down the Voting Rights Act, just like it rejected different extreme arguments made by Alabama a few years ago in another Section 2 case, Allen v. Milligan. But nothing about protection of voting rights can be taken for granted these days, and I'm glad I am not the one who has to make the call about whether to enter the ring at the Supreme Court.
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court Just Put the Voting Rights Act in Its Crosshairs Again
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Louisiana v. Callais, an important battle over Black voters' electoral power under Louisiana's congressional map. In the lower courts, seven judges from across the ideological spectrum concluded that Louisiana's map needed to include two majority-Black districts to remedy a prior violation of the Voting Rights Act. But during Monday's arguments, a number of conservative justices indicated that the inclusion of those two districts may now make the map unconstitutional. And, even more troublingly, the conservative supermajority's questions made clear that Louisiana's remedial map may not be the only thing in danger: The Voting Rights Act itself may also be on the line. Although Black residents account for a third of Louisiana's population, the state had originally passed a congressional map in 2022 that had one majority-Black district out of six. Press Robinson and other Black voters sued, arguing that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits states from diluting the voting strength of Black voters. In June 2022, a district judge held that the 2022 map likely violated Section 2. The case then went through some complex procedural machinations, including a Supreme Court order that allowed the dilutive map to be used in the 2022 congressional elections. Eventually, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit directed Louisiana to either pass a map that remedied the Section 2 violation or proceed to trial so that a lawful map could be put in place before the 2024 election. The Louisiana Legislature opted to enact its own map, known as S.B. 8. Importantly, while S.B. 8 includes two majority-Black districts as required by the VRA, it also accomplished the Legislature's political priorities: protecting the seats of certain incumbent U.S. representatives, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. In 2024, however, a group of self-described 'non-African Americans' challenged S.B. 8, arguing that it was a racial gerrymander in violation of the Constitution. Under Supreme Court precedent, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause prohibits race from being the 'predominant factor' in state legislatures' redistricting decisions. The challengers to S.B. 8 argued that by creating a second Black majority district to comply with the VRA, race prevailed over the Louisiana Legislature's decision to make that district. After a truncated trial, a divided three-judge district court struck down S.B. 8, essentially holding that because the Legislature was committed to remedying the Section 2 violation, race predominated. Louisiana and the Black voters from the original 2022 litigation appealed to the Supreme Court. At its core, this case is about the discretion that states need to draw maps that comply with the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution and satisfy the state's other legitimate redistricting goals, including the state's political aims. As my colleagues and I discussed in a brief we filed in the case, the Supreme Court has held that states must have 'breathing room' when drawing these maps. So if a state has 'good reasons' to believe that it must draw majority-Black districts, federal courts must uphold those legislative judgments unless they conclude that the states considered race more than was necessary to remedy the VRA violation. As Justice Elena Kagan explained at oral argument, a federal court order instructing Louisiana to draw a second majority-Black congressional district is surely a 'good reason' to do so. And here, that order was subsequently affirmed by six different judges on the notoriously conservative 5th Circuit. After appealing the district court decision and losing (twice), the state opted to pass its own remedial map rather than continue litigating a case in which it was doomed to fail and risk having a federal court-drawn map imposed on its citizens. Then, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson detailed, the Legislature's choice of S.B. 8 over other possible maps was based on 'strictly politics': to protect incumbents. That should be the end of this case. The high court has, after all, blessed overtly political considerations in redistricting. Unsurprisingly, however, the court's conservative justices appeared skeptical that S.B. 8 was lawful and that a second majority-Black district was necessary in the first place. The Roberts court has long been hostile to voting rights, and this case appears to be no exception. Throughout Monday's arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts found fault with Louisiana's second majority-Black district, calling it a 'snake,' as if its shape demonstrated its unconstitutionality. He pressed Stuart Naifeh—counsel from the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which represented the Black voters—to explain why the district 'runs from one side of the state angling up to the other, picking up Black populations as it goes along.' As Naifeh explained, the Black communities encompassed by the district were not grouped at random but rather shared histories of discrimination and common interests; a mere glance at the map does not reveal the history behind the geographic location of these populations. Justice Neil Gorsuch, for his part, opined that under the 14th Amendment, 'race should play no role' in our laws, including in redistricting. But this view is not the law; it flies in the face of decades of Supreme Court cases, including Allen v. Milligan, which was decided less than two years ago. As Jackson rightfully pointed out, no Supreme Court precedent has ever held that states may not use race to comply with the VRA. To hold otherwise would cast serious constitutional doubt upon all maps enacted to comply with the act. Other justices trained their focus on Section 2 itself. Troublingly, Justice Brett Kavanaugh reiterated his position from his Milligan concurrence that race-conscious remedies like the VRA 'cannot extend indefinitely into the future.' He noted that Louisiana is making this exact argument in separate litigation about the state's legislative redistricting maps that is currently pending in the 5th Circuit. (My colleagues and I also filed an amicus brief in that case refuting this claim.) While Kavanaugh recognized that the plaintiffs here may have forfeited that argument, his insistence on bringing up this point in a case when it's not even at issue is deeply concerning. And as Naifeh explained, this argument makes particularly little sense in the context of Section 2 litigation, given that the test for vote dilution expressly includes consideration of current circumstances. Finally, and perhaps most concerningly, several justices questioned whether Louisiana should have complied with the 2022 district court order at all. Most prominently, Justice Samuel Alito stated that the district court case was wrongly decided, and he suggested that the state did not have good reason to consent to an order that, in his view, was wrong. These justices' willingness to dismiss a state's compliance with a federal court order so long as the state thinks it's incorrect is alarming. Indeed, as the chief justice said just last week, if a party disagrees with a court decision, they should appeal it. Louisiana already did that and lost. As Jackson put it, it doesn't matter whether the district court order was correct; all that matters is that it exists. There is no valid reason for a state to disobey a court order. All in all, at Monday's oral argument, the court's conservative majority displayed its disdain for the VRA and highlighted several ways in which it could make litigating Section 2 cases more difficult for voters of color. Roberts and Kavanaugh rejected an attack on the VRA two years ago in Milligan, but it appears they may now be looking for another way to hobble its power. Black Louisianians have been fighting for three years for a fair map under which they can elect the candidates of their choice. If the Supreme Court rules against them, it could upend decades of precedent, making it infinitely harder for states to comply with the VRA and radically undermining the act's ability to protect our multiracial democracy.
