The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most important pieces of federal legislation in U.S. history. It’s also seen better days.
Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court effectively gutted the law in 2013, and last year, they weakened it further. Democrats in Congress have tried repeatedly to advance the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which is designed to undo the damage imposed by the conservative justices, but GOP lawmakers have blocked the bill.
Conditions may yet get worse. The Hill reported on a district court ruling from late last week:
In a 42-page decision Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Lee Rudofsky said he would dismiss a suit brought by the Arkansas Public Policy Panel and the Arkansas chapter of the NAACP, which challenges legislative district maps approved by the Republican-controlled legislature that would divide some minority communities in and around Little Rock, unless the U.S. Justice Department joined the case as a plaintiff. Rudofsky’s reasoning: “[T]he Court has concluded that this case may be brought only by the Attorney General of the United States.”
At first blush, this may not seem especially dramatic. A judge said one group of plaintiffs can’t challenge a racially gerrymandered map, but he said a different plaintiff can.
It’s not quite that simple. For the last several decades, organizations such as the NAACP, among many others, have played leadership roles, filing lawsuits based on the Voting Rights Act. In fact, in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, the state’s legal counsel defended the gerrymandered map, but didn’t argue that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
But Judge Lee Rudofsky — a Donald Trump nominee who was confirmed exclusively with Republican votes — took it upon himself to come up with the argument on his own, and then base his ruling on his provocative belief.
At this point, some of you are probably thinking that Attorney General Merrick Garland can simply do what the judge said and file the same case. He might very well do that. But consider what happens the next time there’s a Republican president who appoints a far-right attorney general who has no interest in enforcing the Voting Rights Act.
At that point, under Rudofsky’s reasoning, the Justice Department will sit on its hands, and those eager to protect voting rights through Section 2 litigation will discover the doors to courtrooms are closed.
To be sure, last week’s ruling out of Arkansas will be appealed, and it’s difficult to say whether appellate courts will agree with the district court’s decision.








