Federal Appeals Court Won’t Review Radical Arkansas Redistricting Ruling
High-stakes case involves challenge to radical ruling that rejected decades of precedent that protected voters under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs exploring next legal steps.
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals today announced it will not rehear the high-profile voting case, Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment.
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Arkansas, Law Office of Bryan L. Sells LLC, and Dechert LLP are challenging the Arkansas state House map on behalf of the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel. The groups argue that the map unlawfully stifles the voting strength of Black Arkansans in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA).
In a 2-1 ruling in November, a divided Eighth Circuit panel backed a district court decision that radically concluded voters may not sue to protect their voting rights under Section 2 of the VRA. That assessment disregarded decades of precedent permitting private individuals to protect their voting rights under Section 2.
No court had ever denied private plaintiffs the ability to bring their Section 2 claims in federal court — with the sole exception of the district court and the divided Eighth Circuit panel. More than 400 Section 2 cases have been litigated in federal court in the past four decades to protect the voting rights of racial and language minorities. Private plaintiffs have brought the vast majority of them.
The plaintiffs petitioned for a rehearing before the entire Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was declined today. Three judges would have reheard the case.
Writing in dissent from the denial, Judge Steven Colloton called the panel’s decision “flawed” and disagreed with its conclusion that private parties cannot enforce Section 2. He also would have returned the case to the district court to allow the plaintiffs to assert their claims under a different statute. In denying rehearing, the judge concluded, “the court regrettably misses an opportunity to reaffirm its role as a dispassionate arbiter.”
Today’s ruling — like November’s 2-1 decision — applies only to states in the Eighth Circuit. While it blocks this challenge to the Arkansas House map, neither today’s decision nor the divided panel decision foreclose other avenues for private plaintiffs nationwide to sue to protect their rights under the Voting Rights Act.
The groups are exploring next legal steps, and had the following reactions:
Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, who argued the appeal: “The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had a critical opportunity to reverse the panel’s radical and dangerous ruling. That it chose not to rehear the case ignores the gravity of what’s at stake — generations of precedent protecting voters and in turn our democracy.”
Holly Dickson, executive director of ACLU of Arkansas: “The decision by the Eighth Circuit to not revisit the case is a serious blow to the rights of Arkansas voters. By allowing this ruling to stand, the court set a dangerous precedent that could have far-reaching implications for our democracy. However, our fight is far from over. We are exploring all available options to ensure that every Arkansan’s right to vote is protected and respected.”
Kymara Seals, policy director at the Arkansas Public Policy Panel: “Today’s decision is a setback in our longstanding battle for fair and just representation in Arkansas. This refusal to reconsider the ruling undermines the safeguards against racial discrimination in voting, as established by the Voting Rights Act. We are undeterred in our commitment and are currently assessing the next steps to challenge this decision, which we believe is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the principles of equal representation.”
Barry Jefferson, president of the Arkansas State Conference NAACP: “The refusal of the Eighth Circuit to grant a rehearing is not just a denial of our request; it’s a denial of justice for the Black community in Arkansas. This decision ignores the vital protections against discrimination that have been hard-won over decades. We are now more determined to find alternative pathways to challenge this unjust ruling and continue our fight to ensure that every voice is heard in our state’s political process.”
Order: /cases/naacp-v-arkansas-board-of-apportionment?document=Order-Denying-Rehearing
Statement: /press-releases/federal-appeals-court-wont-review-radical-arkansas-redistricting-ruling
Case background: /cases/naacp-v-arkansas-board-of-apportionment
Voting Rights
NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment
Voting Rights
NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”