Eighth Circuit Court declines to hear Arkansas redistricting appeal
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – On Tuesday, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear a case about Arkansas voting redistricting in a decision with far-reaching implications.
The “Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment” case was unique in the court’s original decision about the Voting Rights Act. In a 2-1 ruling last year, the court held that the Voting Rights Act does not allow voters to sue in order to challenge districting.
Federal appeals court deals a blow to Voting Rights Act, ruling that private plaintiffs can’t sue
In the past, groups representing voters have brought redistricting cases to court under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
In delivering the Feb. 2, 2023 decision, the judge said if the state’s attorney general joined the case as a plaintiff, the case would then have standing before the court.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin declined to join the case, while at the same time indicating a disagreement with the court’s decision on the terms of Section 2, stating: “The United States continues to take the position that private parties, like the Plaintiffs here, have the ability to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act…through a private right of action.”
A private right of action is what allows individuals to file suit.
The Tuesday decision was to a further appeal, asking the court to hear an appeal en banc, where all judges of the court hear a case. The appeal was denied, although three of the court’s judges, including its Chief Justice Lavenski Smith, a President George W. Bush appointee, stated they would have granted the rehearing petition.
Federal court rules for Arkansas House redistricting case to go forward; AG, NAACP react
Judge Steven Colloton, one of the three dissenting, 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.”
The suit was filed, citing that the state’s District 2 map stifled the voting strength of Black Arkansans.
Barry Jackson, president of the Arkansas State Conference NAACP called the Tuesday decision a denial of justice.
“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,” Jackson said. “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.”
Judge allows new court in Mississippi’s majority-Black capital, rejecting NAACP request to stop it
ACLU of Arkansas executive director Holly Dickson called the Tuesday decision dangerous.
“The decision by the Eighth Circuit to not revisit the case is a serious blow to the rights of Arkansas voters,” Dickson said. “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.”
The Eighth Circuit ruling only applies to areas including Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
Arkansas redistricting lawsuit petitions against court decision
A similar case before the Fifth Circuit in November found that private groups, in this case in Louisiana, did have a right to sue for redistricting under Section 2.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to KARK.
