Republicans Eye Renewed Efforts on Voting Rights Act as It Approaches 60th Anniversary

There’s a growing sense of optimism among Republicans about the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which is set to mark its 60th anniversary next week. They seem keen on revitalizing longstanding initiatives related to this significant law.

The Supreme Court could play a pivotal role in these Republican strategies, particularly with major rezoning battles in Louisiana and various legal disputes making their way through lower courts.

While many conservative judges have already upheld critical sections of the VRA, fresh legal avenues might challenge precedents established over decades regarding political power.

“There are clouds gathering, many of which may soon orbit the Supreme Court,” noted Adriel Cepeda Deliu, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) Voting Rights Project.

Democratic Senators view the law as under siege due to recent federal court decisions. They recently reintroduced a bill designed to restore and expand protections within the VRA.

This legislation aims to reinstate requirements eliminated by the Supreme Court in 2013; specifically, it mandates that jurisdictions with a history of discrimination receive federal clearance before modifying voting laws. It also aims to protect voters from being removed from rolls if they haven’t voted in a while and bolsters protections against threats to poll workers.

“Voting rights are the foundation of all other rights,” expressed Senator Rafael Warnock (D-Ga.) during the bill’s announcement. “Democracy is the framework we inhabit. It’s where we can advocate for our priorities.”

However, the bill faces significant challenges in a Congress controlled by Republicans. If it passes, it could still encounter constitutional hurdles.

In the meantime, Republicans are leaning towards weakening the VRA, aiming to limit the ability of voters and private groups to enforce it.

This shift might hinder the efforts of the ACLU and other groups that have historically relied on the law to contest voting practices, effectively pushing such legal battles to state Attorney Generals.

“Private litigators have been essential in bringing these cases through the history of voting rights law,” reflected Wilfred Codrington, a professor at Cardozo Law School. “Most significant cases featured numerous private litigators, so this is indeed important.”

Current efforts to limit private enforcement of the VRA have complicated implications, but Republicans are buoyed by recent signals from some conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

Justice Neil Gorsuch’s comments from 2021 suggest skepticism about whether private parties can sue under Section 2 of the VRA, which still holds significant weight.

“Our lawsuit presupposes that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 includes an implicit cause of action under §2,” Gorsuch noted. “The lower courts appear to view this as an unresolved issue,” he pointed out.

Recently, Republicans gained an important victory in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that private groups could not pursue a claim under Section 2, rejecting an Arkansas NAACP challenge regarding racial gerrymandering. This decision effectively obstructed private enforcement in several states, including Arkansas and Minnesota.

The ruling wasn’t appealed to the Supreme Court, but two recent 8th Circuit decisions have raised justice concerns.

Native American tribes recently sought immediate intervention from the Supreme Court after the 8th Circuit determined they couldn’t contest a map drawn by the North Dakota Legislature. A judge later overruled this decision, with Gorsuch and Thomas publicly opposing this outcome.

It’s not only Section 2 that’s at stake. A recent unanimous ruling by an 8th Circuit panel also found that less familiar provisions of the VRA, such as Section 208, could not be enforced by private citizens, which allows disabled and blind voters to get assistance in casting their votes. The ruling declined to challenge Arkansas’ voting measures.

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin commended the decision, affirming that it allows the state to uphold its voting laws confidently.

As other cases raise questions about the viability of Section 2, debates about civil enforcement could lose relevance. Republican states argue that race-based districts have become unconstitutional due to societal progress in recent decades.

Yet, advocates for voting rights remain hopeful about the VRA’s resilience against adversity.

Cepeda Deliu pointed to a positive ruling from the Supreme Court in 2023 that deemed Alabama’s map as violating the VRA by diluting black voter influence. He argued that this supports the legal foundation of Section 2, which could have implications in similar cases across Louisiana and Mississippi.

“There’s reason for optimism,” he suggested. “Just two years ago, the Supreme Court reaffirmed crucial elements of the VRA.”

Mark Gaber, who leads the Campaign Legal Center’s legal department, expressed concerns that attempts to restrict the law could be counterproductive, as seen in the Milligan case, where courts provided a strong reaffirmation of the law’s constitutionality.

He noted that some judges might misinterpret the situation, claiming that the era of the VRA is over.

With current disputes surrounding Louisiana’s Congressional map—a proposal adding a second majority-black district—there’s a lot at stake. It’s complicated for the state, which faces scrutiny over whether the new district violates the VRA based on lower court findings. Additionally, various lawsuits are questioning the legality of Louisiana’s moves to circumvent limitations.

The Supreme Court is set to address this case later this summer, although it has yet to clarify its reasoning.

Codrington expressed skepticism, suggesting the court might intend to make a substantial ruling regarding the VRA.

“I think the courts are particularly wary of a significant blow to the VRA, especially as we’re witnessing multiple institutional transformations occurring within the Supreme Court,” Codrington commented.

The Supreme Court has yet to disclose what legal concerns will be considered in this matter, leaving the situation’s scope uncertain. However, Thomas appears prepared to critically assess Section 2’s current standing.

“This court is eager for its §2 interpretations to reflect the reality that the constitutional conflict can no longer be overlooked,” Thomas wrote in a recent solitary opinion.