A Body Blow to the Voting Rights Act | Washington Monthly

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

58% : Ideally, it should immediately amend the Voting Rights Act to clarify that the law includes a private right of action.
55% : The majority also recounted the significant legislative history of Section 2, including two committee reports from Congress when it amended the Act in 1982 that said that Congress "intended that citizens have a private cause of action to enforce their rights under Section 2."
50% : Section 2 of the Act, which Congress amended in 1982 to respond to prior Supreme Court rulings requiring proof of an intent to discriminate, prohibits states or localities from passing a voting law that has the effect of racial discrimination.
48% : As I recount in a forthcoming book, scheduled for release in May, the Supreme Court engendered this restrictive ruling -- and many others -- through its numerous decisions curtailing voting rights and deferring to state politicians in election rules.
47% : Legislative action should be unnecessary, as a proper judicial analysis would show that the private right exists already.
44% : It also failed to acknowledge a decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month that rejected the argument that Section 2 does not include a private right of action.
43% : But in his dissent to the Alabama ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that the majority had failed to address "grave constitutional questions" about the Act, including whether Section 2 "contains a private right of action."
42% : In June, the Supreme Court rejected a different challenge to Section 2 from Alabama, affirming a preliminary ruling that the state violated the Act by drawing a congressional map without sufficient minority representation.
39% : No one on the Court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist questioned whether the law allowed those voters to sue under the act.
38% : However, the Eighth Circuit majority ignored this evidence because the private right of action is not explicitly in the text of the law.
37% : Two judges -- one nominated by Donald Trump and the other by George W. Bush -- issued an opinion that ended more than four decades of precedent, ruling that Section 2 does not allow a private right of action.
37% : The Court cut back on Section 5 of the Act in the Shelby County case; it limited Section 2 for claims of vote denial in the Arizona case, Brnovich v. DNC.
35% : In that case, Brnovich v. DNC, Gorsuch wrote a concurrence, which Thomas joined, to "flag" an issue: whether Section 2 allows a private right of action.
34% : As President Lyndon Johnson said upon signing the law, "This act flows from a clear and simple wrong.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.