WASHINGTON (CN) - The Supreme Court signaled on Monday that its landmark voting rights decision could impact challenges to state legislative maps that discriminate on the basis of race, color or language-minority membership.
The justices refused to review two disputes, asking whether voters and advocacy groups could bring vote dilution claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Instead, the court called on the lower courts to conduct a new review of the lawsuits under its ruling in Louisiana v. Callais.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, dissented from the summary disposition in both cases, writing that Callais did not address whether Section 2 can be privately enforced. She added that further review was unnecessary because existing precedent already answered the question.
Callais focused on remedies for claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires minority voters to have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. Monday's order instead centered on who has standing to bring those claims.
Black Mississippi voters and the NAACP challenged the state's 2022 redistricting plan, saying it split large, cohesive Black populations. A three-judge panel later found the maps violated the Voting Rights Act, ruling that Black-preferred candidates consistently could not win outside majority-minority districts.
The panel finalized a remedial map, which was used for special elections last year.
Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to review whether Black Mississippians and the NAACP could have brought their suit in the first place.
"The Voting Rights Act provides for enforcement - including for section 2 - but does not provide for private enforcement of section 2," the state wrote. "Rather than deputize private parties to enforce section 2, Congress 'expressly authorized' the attorney general to do so."
North Dakota's 2021 legislative maps faced a similar challenge from the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, the Spirit Lake Tribe and three Native American voters. A lower court ruled in their favor, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, finding Section 2 is not privately enforceable.
The tribes and voters asked the Supreme Court to reverse that decision under Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, a 1996 ruling that recognized there was a private right of action under the Voting Rights Act.
"This court assured the nation that Section 2 would remain an essential and effective backstop against discrimination in voting," the voters wrote. "But Section 2 has always been enforced primarily by private litigants. The Eighth Circuit's decision thus deprives voters in seven states of the ability to protect their own rights under Section 2."
Jackson similarly cited Morse to explain why the justices could have summarily reversed rather than ask for another lower-court review under Callais.
The Supreme Court vacated both lower court decisions.
Monday's order is just the latest reverberation of the Supreme Court's Callais ruling. Since the decision was handed down last month, the justices have issued emergency rulings allowing Republicans in Louisiana and Alabama to redraw their maps ahead of the midterm elections.
On a different redistricting question, the high court rejected Virginia Democrats' attempt to save a redistricting map approved by voters.
Source: Courthouse News Service
