Court restricts who can bring voting rights challenges in a case involving voters with disabilities
The case centered on whether an Arkansas state law that limits how many voters can be assisted by one person conflicts with Section 208 of the landmark federal law. The opinion from the three-judge panel followed the reasoning of another 8th Circuit panel in a previous case from 2023. That opinion held that the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Conference could not bring cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
'Like the provision at issue in Arkansas State Conference, we conclude the text and structure of (Section) 208 do not create a private right of action,' said the decision written by Judge L. Steven Grasz, a nominee of President Donald Trump. 'Likewise, we conclude no private right of action is created by the Supremacy Clause.' In the previous case, the district court judge said he could not reach an opinion on the merits because the plaintiffs did not have standing under Section 2 and gave the Justice Department five days to join the case. The circuit court panel agreed with his reasoning in a 2-1 decision.
The 8th Circuit, which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, has issued three rulings holding that individuals and private entities don't have standing to bring challenges against voting laws. The other came in May in a lawsuit over North Dakota redistricting. In that case, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians with reservations 60 miles apart argued that the state's 2021 legislative map violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that only the US Department of Justice could bring such lawsuits and the full circuit declined to take up the case. The US Supreme Court blocked the ruling last week while it decides whether to hear the case.
The Justice Department declined to comment on whether it would be intervening in the Arkansas case. It earlier declined to comment on the case involving the two North Dakota tribes. The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, which is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit revolving around voters with disabilities, declined to comment on Monday's ruling. Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the Voting Rights Project for the ACLU, said she wasn't surprised by the ruling given the decisions in the earlier cases.
'I think it's important to keep focus on the fact that the 8th Circuit's decisions are radical and completely at odds with decades of precedent, including from the Supreme Court itself, as well as the text, history, and purpose of the Voting Rights Act,' said Lakin, who was one of the attorneys in the initial Arkansas State Conference case. 'Private litigants have been the engine of enforcement of the Voting Rights Act for sixty years.' Section 2 is considered one of the more consequential parts of the Voting Rights Act that remains intact after a 2013 Supreme Court decision removed Section 5. That section required that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get approval from the federal government before changing their voting and election laws.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
5 hours ago
- Arab News
Lower voting age: youth empowerment or gimmick?
The headline feature of the UK government's new policy paper to reform and modernize the democratic system is legislating for 16- and 17-year-olds to be able to vote in the next general election. This proposal was already in Labour's manifesto before last year's election, albeit surprisingly not featured in the government's first King's Speech last summer, which is regarded as the blueprint for the government's intentions for the following year. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, in her usual plain-speaking manner, justified the move by saying: 'I was a mum at 16; you can go to work, you can pay your taxes, and I think that people should have a vote at 16.' She was not wrong, although parts of her argument might be more convincing than others. This decision, which is quite radical, has implications beyond voting rights — and on how we perceive at what age young people cross the threshold into adulthood. It was met with some skepticism regarding Labour's intentions, with the claim that from a completely utilitarian standpoint, analysis of the last election's voting patterns by age shows that Labour could gain most at the ballot box. According to an Ipsos poll, 41 percent of 18 to 24-year-olds supported Labour compared with 16 percent who supported Lib Dems and a mere 5 percent who voted for the Conservatives. In this case, adding even younger people to the poll of voters is likely to strengthen the current party in government, especially if it attends to their needs and wishes. Yet we should not let cynicism distract us from the merits of empowering youth and giving them a meaningful voice in deciding who is to lead the country — and in this case the process of voting in elections also brings forward a rite of passage into adulthood, of becoming proactive and aware citizens of their country and equally as global citizens. Historically, whenever the right to vote was extended to wider segments of society, it had its opponents, especially those who already enjoyed this exclusive privilege and would rather not share it with a wider population. In the history of the right to vote, there were times when it was conditioned, for instance on reaching a certain income or social status, and times when ethnic and religious minorities, and women, were blocked. But when the right was extended to all in 1918, it has never been seriously contested again, since the democratic system thrives on inclusivity. Immediately after the First World War, men had gained the right to vote if they were over 21, whether or not they owned property; however, women had to be aged over 30, and also had to meet minimum property-owning criteria, a situation which was rectified a decade later. Then it was regarded as revolutionary, but the trend did not stop there and eventually, in 1969, the UK became the first country to lower the age of franchise from 21 to 18, setting a new benchmark for adulthood. Nevertheless, there is growing evidence that today's under-18s are much more aware of social and political issues, saturated with information, even if not necessarily accurate and helpful, and engage in social-political debates. Additionally, extending the franchise to young people, as research has found, increases their overall participation in the democratic processes and increases their sense of responsibility. This is a welcome step, although it should not be seen as merely an act of gesture politics or to curry favor with young people to get their vote. The infusion of new, young blood could be just the powerful jolt that our stale democracies desperately need. Yossi Mekelberg In the decision to extend voting rights to younger people, there are elements of expediency and of fairness. To begin with, most of the youth will still be in education, and granting them the right to vote would be an opportunity to enhance the citizenship curriculum, which includes learning about the rights and the duties that come with adulthood, and about being part of their community and wider national and international societies. For this, the school curriculum will have to be adjusted so that 16- and 17- year-olds become included in the learning process of becoming responsible and critical voters. This is especially important in the age of social media when the flood of information too often distracts from more profound social and political issues or is presented in a distorted way. The privilege of voting, and it is a privilege, must come with a well-thought-out introduction to life as an inquisitive and proactive voter. It is also an opportunity, in a world where the art of civilized and constructive debate falls victim to toxicity, and where winning the argument takes precedence over a mutual understanding of the issues, to revive the skills of constructive and respectful discussion. But there is also the issue of fairness. For instance, in the UK, 16-year-olds can join the army, something that, incidentally, has been criticized by the UN Committee of the Child. But as long as this is the case, those who can serve their country in uniform, even though under 18, are not permitted to be deployed on the front line. However, once they become adults, and continue to serve based on a commitment they made as a minor, they should be entitled to influence the country's foreign affairs trajectory, which might find them engaged in wars and conflicts, through the ballot box. Similarly, those who either left school and are in full-time employment, or those who work part-time and also study or take an apprenticeship, are paying taxes, and although the notion of 'No taxation without representation' is taken from the American Revolution in defiance of the British colonialists, it still rings true on this side of the Atlantic. It is also the case that in Scotland and Wales, those aged 16 or 17 have for some time been able to vote in Holyrood and the Senedd, their respective national assemblies, as well as in local council elections, and the proposed change will bring England and Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK. In recent elections we have witnessed the rise of extreme political ideologies throughout Western societies, which to a large extent stems from questioning not only the wisdom of policies, but also the legitimacy of those who create them. To overcome this crisis of legitimacy, which also manifests itself in low turnouts at elections, the system badly needs shaking up, and the infusion of new, young blood, of nearly 10 million 16– and 17-year-olds who are interested, and aware that their decisions can affect them for decades to come, could be just the powerful jolt that our stale democracies desperately need.
Asharq Al-Awsat
8 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Hamas Says it Won't Disarm Unless Independent Palestinian State Established
Hamas said on Saturday that it would not lay down arms unless an independent Palestinian state is established. In a statement, the Palestinian militant faction said its "armed resistance ... cannot be relinquished except through the full restoration of our national rights, foremost among them the establishment of an independent, fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital." Indirect negotiations between Hamas and Israel aimed at securing a 60-day ceasefire in the Gaza war and deal for the release of hostages ended last week in deadlock. In Tel Aviv, families of hostages protested and urged Israel's government to push harder for the release of their loved ones, including those shown in footage released by militant groups earlier this week. US President Donald Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff joined them, a week after quitting ceasefire talks, blaming Hamas's intransigence and pledging to find other ways to free hostages and make Gaza safe. Of the 251 hostages who were abducted by Hamas-led militants, around 20 are believed to be alive in Gaza. Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the second-largest militant group in Gaza, released separate videos of individual hostages this week, triggering outrage among hostage families and Israeli society.
Asharq Al-Awsat
12 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Suez Canal Chief: No Fee Exemptions, Even for US Ships
The head of Egypt's Suez Canal Authority (SCA) has dismissed US President Donald Trump's call to allow American ships to transit the vital waterway for free, insisting that Egypt remains committed to international treaties that prohibit preferential treatment. Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, SCA Chairman Osama Rabie said Egypt 'respects international maritime conventions,' referencing the 1888 Constantinople Convention, which guarantees free navigation through the canal under equal terms for all nations. 'There can be no distinction between ships in terms of services or commercial and financial preferences that favor one country over another,' Rabie said. 'This is not a stance against the United States, but rather a reflection of Egypt's commitment to impartiality — a principle that assures all nations of fair treatment.' Trump, who is seeking a return to the White House in November, argued in an April post on his Truth Social platform that US military and commercial vessels should be granted free access to both the Suez and Panama Canals. 'These canals wouldn't exist without the United States,' he wrote. The Suez Canal, a key source of foreign currency for Egypt, has suffered a sharp downturn in revenue and traffic since Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthi group began targeting ships in the Red Sea in late 2023, prompting many shipping lines to reroute via the longer and costlier Cape of Good Hope. 'We're facing a major crisis,' Rabie said, noting that daily transits have dropped to 30–35 vessels from more than 65 a day before the escalation. Annual canal revenue plunged 61% to $3.9 billion in the first half of 2024, down from $10.2 billion in 2023, Rabie added. A total of 13,213 ships passed through the canal in 2024, compared to 26,434 in 2023, before the outbreak of war in Gaza. Despite mounting pressure to safeguard maritime routes, Egypt has refused to join any military coalition targeting the Houthis. 'It is not Egypt's policy to engage in military alliances or attack an Arab country — after all, Yemen is a fellow Arab state,' Rabie said. Since November, the Houthis have carried out more than 150 missile and drone attacks on vessels they say are linked to Israel, in retaliation for the war in Gaza. The assaults have sunk four ships, damaged several others, and killed at least 10 seafarers. The Iran-backed group also hijacked the Galaxy Leader vessel in a high-profile act of piracy. In April, a US-led operation launched in December 2023 under the name 'Operation Prosperity Guardian' began leading strikes on Houthi targets from the northern Red Sea. Egypt declined to join both that initiative and Trump's earlier campaign, 'Operation Rough Rider,' unveiled in March. Rabie expressed frustration at the ongoing war in Gaza, warning that continued violence would prolong the canal's downturn. 'A few months ago, traffic showed slight improvement following a ceasefire, but then the Houthis resumed attacks — hitting two ships in the past fortnight alone,' he said. 'Now, with conditions in Gaza deteriorating, our situation is worsening as well.' On Monday, the Houthis declared a 'fourth phase' of their maritime blockade against Israel, vowing to target all ships linked to Israeli ports 'regardless of their nationality or destination.' Still, Rabie remains optimistic that shipping through the Suez Canal will rebound once the war ends. 'If the fighting stops, the Houthis will have no justification to attack vessels in the Red Sea. We're hopeful that peace comes soon,' he said. 'Major ships have diverted to the Cape of Good Hope because it's currently safer, despite the higher costs and longer transit times,' he added. 'They've told us they'll return as soon as the war ends because no alternative can match the Suez Canal's advantages. Global shipping firms know this.' Rabie urged international insurance companies to reduce premiums for vessels transiting the Red Sea, arguing that soaring insurance costs have contributed to the diversion of large ships away from the canal. 'Today, the total cost of passing through the Red Sea — including insurance — has exceeded the cost of the longer Cape route, driving many vessels to abandon the canal despite the longer journey,' he said. To lure shipping traffic back, Egypt has introduced incentives, including up to 15% discounts on transit fees for container ships weighing 130,000 tons or more, whether laden or empty. 'We're doing all we can,' Rabie said. 'But until the security situation stabilizes, we're facing an uphill battle.'
