Latest news with #VRA
Newsweek
7 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Supreme Court May Weaken 1965 Voting Rights Act Further
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to intervene in a case that could significantly limit the scope of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the 1965 law that prohibits racial discrimination in elections. Why It Matters On Tuesday, two North Dakota tribes—the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe—alongside three Native American voters, petitioned the Supreme Court to block a lower court ruling and preserve their ability to enforce voting rights through private lawsuits. "Everywhere else in the country, private plaintiffs can rely on an unbroken line of Supreme Court and circuit precedent to enforce the individual rights given to them by Congress in the Voting Rights Act," the tribes wrote. "But the decision below extinguished the only remaining pathway for private enforcement of Section 2 of the VRA in the Eighth Circuit. ... There is a reasonable probability this Court will grant review of the Eighth Circuit's decision to ensure uniform application of the law." The appeal followed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which holds that only the federal government, not private citizens or organizations, can sue under Section 2 of the VRA in its jurisdiction of seven Midwestern states. This legal battle stands to reshape how the VRA—a critical civil rights law for 60 years—can be enforced, particularly across North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska and Arkansas. Section 2 of the VRA has long enabled private citizens and advocacy groups to challenge discriminatory redistricting or voting laws in federal court. Leonard Powell, staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, told Newsweek via email on Wednesday that he and plaintiffs are glad that Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued an order on Wednesday staying the Eighth Circuit's mandate pending further order of Kavanaugh or the High Court. "The Eighth Circuit's ruling wrongly deprives voters of their ability to sue when they are racially discriminated against in violation of the Voting Rights Act," Powell said. "We accordingly have asked the Supreme Court to stay that decision." Newsweek reached out to North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe's office for comment. What To Know From 1982 to August 2024, about 96.4 percent of successful Section 2 claims were brought by private plaintiffs, not the U.S. Department of Justice, according to the tribes. They were also the sole litigants in 86.7 percent of such decisions. With the 8th Circuit's May decision, this avenue is closed in its jurisdiction, potentially removing a major enforcement tool for minority voters and undermining Congress' strongest civil rights statute. Voting rights activists rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments in Moore v. Harper on December 7, 2022, in Washington, D.C. Voting rights activists rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments in Moore v. Harper on December 7, 2022, in Washington, Garber, counsel in the Brennan Center's Voting Rights and Elections Program, told Newsweek on Wednesday that Section 2 of the VRA allows private individuals and groups to bring lawsuits to argue discrimination in voting. That doesn't have to prove intent; rather, just the result of a law or policy or map being discriminatory. "In this case the tribes challenged a state legislative map drawn by North Dakota, and their argument was basically that the map was drawn to minimize the voting power of native voters, to make sure that districts were cracked and packed to make sure as few of the districts would represent the will of native voters as opposed to white voters," Garber said. In 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte sided with the tribes, ruling the map discriminatory and ordering new district lines. Elections with Welte's map in place led to three Native American lawmakers being elected from District 9 in 2024—including a historic first, Spirit Lake Nation's Collette Brown. North Dakota appealed the decision, and the 8th Circuit in May ruled that private plaintiffs have no authority to enforce Section 2 of the VRA—contradicting decades of established practice and decisions in other circuits. The court instructed the district court to dismiss the lawsuit, making the 8th the only circuit in the country where private enforcement of the VRA is barred. The legal dispute began after North Dakota adopted a 2021 legislative redistricting map that the plaintiffs argued diluted the voting power of Native American communities. "If this ruling holds the immediate and really jarring ramification is that Section 2 with Voting Rights Act will basically not be enforced in seven states in the center of the country, because private individuals and groups can't bring these lawsuits," Garber said. "Right now, the federal Department of Justice clearly isn't going to be bringing any Section 2 lawsuits. "And even when there's a motivated DOJ...[it] has never been able to enforce this law alone; they always needed private enforcement as well. That's really, really damaging to voters of color in those states. Some of these states, including the Dakotas, Nebraska, Minnesota have a lot of native voters, really strong native communities." Somewhat ironic is that such native voters have "winning claims" in that they're continuing to face racial discrimination in voting, Garber added, yet they wouldn't even be able to bring those claims at all if this case moves forward as intended. Plaintiffs argue that losing the ability to challenge discriminatory maps directly endangers the representation of Native American legislators and could set a precedent for other states to follow. They warned that, absent Supreme Court action, the 2021 map—which was previously deemed discriminatory—could be used in the 2026 elections, potentially resulting in the removal of current Native American lawmakers. Garber said whether or not the Supreme Court takes up this case is still in question. In 2023, the High Court ruled in favor of Black registered voters and organizations in the Alabama case Allen v. Milligan, in which the plaintiffs successfully challenged their legislative map, arguing that the state had illegally packed Black voters into a single district while dividing other clusters across multiple districts. The court ultimately voted 5-4 to freeze a lower court ruling. "It's really hard to tell [if the Court will take up this case]," Garber said. "This Court has been extraordinarily unfriendly to the Voting Rights Act over the last couple of decades, gutted some of its key provisions. ... There is a lot at stake here, and the efforts to undermine Section 2 over the last decade-plus; sections have been attacked on all fronts. The kind of core idea of it has continued to survive." What People Are Saying New York City trial attorney Nicole Brenecki told Newsweek: "Given the Supreme Court's recent trajectory of limiting the scope of the Voting Rights Act, particularly in decisions like Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. DNC, it's possible the Court may further curtail federal oversight of state election laws. "While the Court has occasionally maintained key provisions, such as in Allen v. Milligan, the broader trend suggests a willingness to defer to states even when voting protections are at risk. Any upcoming challenges could test how far the Court is willing to go in redefining the Act's core principles." What Happens Next The Supreme Court has directed North Dakota to respond to the plaintiffs' emergency motion by July 22. The justices have yet to decide whether to block the 8th Circuit ruling or grant full review of the case. Legal observers expect that the court's decision could profoundly affect enforcement of voting rights protections in the United States, especially for minority communities.
Time of India
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
What is the Voting Rights Act, the 1965 law that changed America — and why it's back in the spotlight now
The Supreme Court is revisiting the Voting Rights Act, potentially altering safeguards against discriminatory voting maps. Justice Clarence Thomas, holding long-standing concerns that the VRA exacerbates racial tensions, finds support among conservative justices. A Louisiana redistricting case, challenging the creation of Black-majority districts, highlights the court's re-evaluation of the VRA's scope and private individuals' ability to sue under it. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Why is the Supreme Court taking another look at the VRA? What's the Louisiana case about? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Why is Justice Clarence Thomas against it? Are other justices agreeing with Thomas? Can individuals and advocacy groups still sue under the VRA? FAQs Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Supreme Court is revisiting the Voting Rights Act (VRA), a landmark 1965 law, it is a law that prevents practices that deny Blacks, Hispanics and other racial minorities an equal chance to vote, as per a report. Justice Clarence Thomas has long argued against a key part of the VRA because he believes that it worsens racial tensions, as reported by CNN. Justice Thomas first voiced his concerns in 1994, but back then, colleagues considered his position "radical," according to the report. Only Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with him, as per with more conservative justices in the court, views of Thomas, a conservative African American, have gained traction, reported READ: Are you 65 or older? You could get a $6,000 bonus tax deduction under Trump's new law Louisiana redistricting case order from the high court "suggests that it is seriously reconsidering the scope of VRA safeguards against congressional and state legislative district maps that dilute minority votes," wrote CNN in its current dispute involves a Louisiana redistricting map as a US district court found Louisiana's original 2022 map, with a single Black-majority district, which denied Black voters an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates, as reported by CNN. Black people make up about one-third of Louisiana's population, and the state redrew the map to create two Black-majority districts , as per the report. However, a group of mostly White voters sued, saying that the state legislature unconstitutionally created a racial gerrymander and adopted some of Thomas' arguments, as reported by Supreme Court will rehear the Louisiana case in the upcoming session that begins in October, and said that they would issue a subsequent order regarding additional grounds to be covered, according to a report. This is a rare move for the justices to order a new argument in a controversy, but when they do, the move tends to expand the possible consequences, as reported by READ: 7 anti-aging superfoods scientists swear by for a sharper brain in your 70s Justice Thomas dissented, wanting the court to rule that Section 2 of the VRA is unconstitutional, according to the report. Section 2 requires considering race to ensure fair voting districts as Thomas wrote, 'I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its Section 2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore,' quoted believes the VRA has become a tool for "regulating, rationing, and apportioning political power among racial and ethnic groups," as quoted by CNN. He added, 'In short, few devices could be better designed to exacerbate racial tensions than the consciously segregated districting system currently being constructed in the name of the Voting Rights Act,' as quoted in the conservative justices have echoed Thomas' concerns, like Justice Neil Gorsuch has called the court's voting rights jurisprudence a "disastrous misadventure," while Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett have also pressed for a "race neutral" approach, as per the issue is whether private individuals can sue under Section 2 of the VRA, as the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that only the Justice Department can bring such claims, according to the report. This contradicts other lower courts and lawyers for Native American tribes are appealing this decision to the Supreme Court, reported the Supreme Court is reviewing parts of it, and its decision could change how voting rights are protected, especially for people of color, as per the CNN believes using race to draw voting maps causes more racial tension instead of solving it — and that the law no longer fits today's America.
CNN
11-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Anaylsis: Clarence Thomas has long tried to undercut the Voting Rights Act. Now, he may finally have the numbers
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been imploring his colleagues for decades to gut a crucial part of the iconic Voting Rights Act that prohibits practices denying Blacks, Hispanics and other racial minorities an equal right to vote. When Thomas first laid out his objections in 1994, insisting that the act was exacerbating rather than easing 'racial tensions,' several colleagues called his position 'radical,' and only Antonin Scalia endorsed it. But as more right-wing justices have joined the court, the views of Thomas, a conservative African American, have gained traction. Now, a mysterious order from the high court in a Louisiana redistricting case suggests it is seriously reconsidering the scope of VRA safeguards against congressional and state legislative district maps that dilute minority votes. The looming battle comes as some states, notably Alabama, are resisting court orders to remedy discrimination, and President Donald Trump's Justice Department is abandoning the federal government's usual role in protecting minority voting rights. The justices' eventual action on this case and other simmering controversies, which would affect congressional maps used in the 2026 elections and beyond, could lead to a retrenchment of practices that consider race to ensure that minorities are not put at a disadvantage. The entire debate necessarily acquires a partisan dimension as Blacks and other minority voters tend to lean Democratic. The stakes in the Louisiana dispute pending at the high court rose when the justices on June 27, the last day of their regular session, revealed that they had not been able to resolve the case that had been argued in March. The justices announced it would be reargued in the upcoming session that begins in October and that they'd issue a subsequent order regarding additional ground to be covered. Rarely do the justices order a new argument in a controversy, but when they do, the move tends to expand the possible consequences, as happened in the 2010 Citizens United campaign finance dispute. After reargument, the justices overturned precedent and gave corporations and labor unions new First Amendment rights for vast spending in elections. Deepening the puzzle of what may be developing at the Supreme Court, Thomas wrote a six-page dissenting statement to the June 27 order in Louisiana v. Callais. He was ready to act now. Thomas wanted the court to rule outright that the VRA's Section 2, which requires consideration of voters' race to ensure that congressional and state legislative voting districts are drawn fairly, violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. 'I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its Section 2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore,' Thomas wrote. No other justice signed onto that particular Thomas dissent, but in the past Justice Neil Gorsuch, who succeeded Scalia in 2017, has fully joined Thomas' sentiment regarding 'the disastrous misadventure of this Court's voting rights jurisprudence.' Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett joined parts of Thomas' view two years ago, pressing for a 'race neutral' approach, in a controversy over Alabama's redistricting map. The four – Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito and Barrett – dissented in that 2023 case of Allen v. Milligan as Chief Justice John Roberts crafted a narrow majority to affirm Section 2's protections for racial minorities in redistricting battles. Roberts insisted the dissenters' approach would force the court to turn its back on a swath of precedent. 'Section 2 itself demands consideration of race' when correcting a discriminatory map, he wrote. The question whether additional majority-minority districts can be drawn 'involves a quintessentially race-conscious calculus.' Roberts' opinion marked a sharp turn in his own opposition to racial remedies. In a 2007 case, he wrote, 'the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.' Roberts also authored the 2013 milestone, Shelby County v. Holder, that dismantled a separate Voting Rights Act section that had required states with a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval for any electoral changes. During March oral arguments in the Louisiana case, Roberts was skeptical of the state's new map with two Black-majority districts, which were created after a lower court found the original map with a single Black-majority district likely violated Section 2. Roberts questioned whether one of the new districts was sufficiently 'compact' to meet standards; he called it 'a snake that runs from one end of the state to the other.' Gorsuch quickly echoed Roberts, and Gorsuch went further to suggest any consideration of race, to redraw a discriminatory map, would breach the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether there should be a 'durational' limit on the use of Section 2, that is, that 'the authority of a state to engage in race-based redistricting must have an end point.' The pending case began when a US district court found Louisiana's original 2022 map, with a single Black-majority district, denied Black voters an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. Black people make up about one-third of the state's population. The state has six congressional districts. The Louisiana legislature redrew the map to create two Black-majority districts but also to protect the state's favored incumbents, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. A group of mostly White voters subsequently filed their own lawsuit, saying that the state legislature unconstitutionally created a racial gerrymander and adopting some of Thomas' arguments. 'I would like to think that his view of the VRA is still a radical view on this court,' said Stuart Naifeh, of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, one of the lawyers who defended Louisiana's new map at the high court in March. Naifeh noted that Supreme Court precedent sets specific standards for when Section 2's redistricting remedy is required, with attention to current conditions and racial polarization in a state. Naifeh and Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga emphasized that the court has said legislatures have 'breathing room' to accommodate political interests, such as the protection of incumbents, along with racial considerations. That is why the lines of some remedial districts may appear loosely drawn or, as Roberts described it, snakelike. Edward Greim, a Kansas City, Missouri, lawyer who represented those challenging the revised map declined to comment on the court's new order and Thomas' position. During the oral arguments, Greim urged the justices to consider whether the VRA remedy had run its course. 'Why are we suddenly now – as voters are becoming more integrated, why are we suddenly finding new Section 2 districts everywhere? I think that's a problem,' he said. One related issue the justices could soon take up is whether private individuals and advocacy groups can sue under the VRA's Section 2. That question has grown in salience as the Trump DOJ withdraws or switches sides in voting rights disputes. Ruling against Native American tribes in a North Dakota redistricting case, the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals broke with other lower courts and said only the Justice Department could bring such claims. Lawyers for the tribes told the 8th Circuit on Wednesday that they will appeal the case to the Supreme Court. 'There is no other circuit in the country in which private plaintiffs are unable to enforce their rights under Section 2 …' the lawyers for the two tribes said in their notice to the 8th Circuit. 'As a result, American citizens in the states of this circuit have fewer enforceable voting rights than the citizens in every other state in the country.' The appeals court'sMay ruling built on a separate groundbreaking 8th Circuit decision, in a 2023 case from Arkansas, that cited the writings of Justices Gorsuch and Thomas, characterizing the availability of a private right of action as an 'open question.' Thomas, who became a justice in 1991, has consistently clung to the VRA views he expounded in the 1994 case of Holder v. Hall. 'The statute was originally perceived as a remedial provision directed specifically at eradicating discriminatory practices that restricted blacks' ability to register and vote in the segregated South,' he wrote at the time. 'Now, the Act has grown into something entirely different. In construing the Act to cover claims of vote dilution, we have converted the Act into a device for regulating, rationing, and apportioning political power among racial and ethnic groups.' 'In short,' Thomas added, 'few devices could be better designed to exacerbate racial tensions than the consciously segregated districting system currently being constructed in the name of the Voting Rights Act.'
The Guardian
17-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Georgia Republican officials to finally face election after years of legal delays
Two members of Georgia's powerful public service commission will finally face primary voters Tuesday after court challenges that threw a competing candidate off of ballots and more than two years of delays that left incumbents in office. The Georgia Public Service Commission oversees gas, electric and other utilities, setting rates and regulating power plants for Georgia Power. Each member of the five-person commission must live in the district assigned to their seat, even though voters across Georgia vote in each race. All five commissioners are Republicans, despite Georgia's close partisan divide and even though two of the districts would strongly favor Democrats if only voters in those districts chose candidates. A group of Black voters in metro Atlanta led by Richard Rose of the Georgia NAACP challenged Georgia's unusual at-large system for electing public service commissioners in 2020 under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), arguing that at-large elections dilute Black voting power. Steven Grimberg, a US district court judge, ruled for the plaintiffs in August 2022, leading Brad Raffensperger, Georgia's secretary of state, to cancel the 2022 election for two commission seats while lawmakers and appeals courts worked through the issue. The 11th circuit court of appeals reversed the lower court's ruling in 2024. The US supreme court declined to take up the case. Had it heard the case, some voting rights advocates were concerned that an adverse ruling might have further eroded the Voting Rights Act by affirming the use of at-large districts nationwide as a broadly acceptable practice. Raffensberger also canceled the 2024 election for a third seat after the state legislature passed a bill that extended every commissioner's term by at least one year and reset the election calendar. All three commissioners have been allowed to stay in office while the convoluted legal process played out. Commissioner Tim Echols faces Lee Muns, a former member of the Columbia county board of education who helped build part of Georgia Power's Plant Vogtle nuclear plant in the late 1980s. The commission has raised electricity rates in recent years to cover cost overruns in Vogtle's construction. The winner of that contest will face Democrat Alicia Johnson of Savannah in November. Commissioner Fitz Johnson does not face primary opposition, but three Democrats are vying for their party's nomination in district three: former Atlanta city councilwoman Keisha Sean Waites, utility activist Peter Hubbard and former utility executive Robert Jones. A fourth candidate, Daniel Blackman, was removed from the ballot in a residency challenge earlier this month. Joe Biden appointed Blackman as a regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency after he narrowly lost a challenge to incumbent public service commissioner Bubba McDaniel in the supercharged January 2021 Georgia runoff election. Blackman leased a one-bedroom dwelling in Atlanta, but a Fulton county judge ruled that he provided insufficient evidence that he actually lived at the address. Blackman's wife and child reside in their Forsyth county home north of Atlanta, and Blackman did not change his voter registration from that address until a few weeks ago. Voters will find notices in polling places of Blackman's disqualification on Tuesday. Votes cast for him will not be counted, Raffensperger's office said. Though Georgia voters have increasingly opted to vote early, the off-year election and the uncertainty around Blackman's challenge to the disqualification has meant a low turnout race so far. Out of about 7.4 million active voters in Georgia, fewer than 75,000 have voted to date.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Vera Bradley (VRA) Reports Q1 Loss, Lags Revenue Estimates
Vera Bradley (VRA) came out with a quarterly loss of $0.36 per share versus the Zacks Consensus Estimate of a loss of $0.13. This compares to loss of $0.21 per share a year ago. These figures are adjusted for non-recurring items. This quarterly report represents an earnings surprise of -176.92%. A quarter ago, it was expected that this handbag and accessories company would post earnings of $0.10 per share when it actually produced a loss of $0.30, delivering a surprise of -400%. Over the last four quarters, the company has not been able to surpass consensus EPS estimates. Vera Bradley , which belongs to the Zacks Retail - Apparel and Shoes industry, posted revenues of $51.65 million for the quarter ended April 2025, missing the Zacks Consensus Estimate by 4.21%. This compares to year-ago revenues of $80.6 million. The company has not been able to beat consensus revenue estimates over the last four quarters. The sustainability of the stock's immediate price movement based on the recently-released numbers and future earnings expectations will mostly depend on management's commentary on the earnings call. Vera Bradley shares have lost about 40.2% since the beginning of the year versus the S&P 500's gain of 2.7%. While Vera Bradley has underperformed the market so far this year, the question that comes to investors' minds is: what's next for the stock? There are no easy answers to this key question, but one reliable measure that can help investors address this is the company's earnings outlook. Not only does this include current consensus earnings expectations for the coming quarter(s), but also how these expectations have changed lately. Empirical research shows a strong correlation between near-term stock movements and trends in earnings estimate revisions. Investors can track such revisions by themselves or rely on a tried-and-tested rating tool like the Zacks Rank, which has an impressive track record of harnessing the power of earnings estimate revisions. Ahead of this earnings release, the estimate revisions trend for Vera Bradley: unfavorable. While the magnitude and direction of estimate revisions could change following the company's just-released earnings report, the current status translates into a Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell) for the stock. So, the shares are expected to underperform the market in the near future. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here. It will be interesting to see how estimates for the coming quarters and current fiscal year change in the days ahead. The current consensus EPS estimate is $0.01 on $81.91 million in revenues for the coming quarter and -$0.15 on $280.39 million in revenues for the current fiscal year. Investors should be mindful of the fact that the outlook for the industry can have a material impact on the performance of the stock as well. In terms of the Zacks Industry Rank, Retail - Apparel and Shoes is currently in the bottom 35% of the 250 plus Zacks industries. Our research shows that the top 50% of the Zacks-ranked industries outperform the bottom 50% by a factor of more than 2 to 1. Darden Restaurants (DRI), another stock in the broader Zacks Retail-Wholesale sector, has yet to report results for the quarter ended May 2025. The results are expected to be released on June 20. This owner of Olive Garden and other chain restaurants is expected to post quarterly earnings of $2.92 per share in its upcoming report, which represents a year-over-year change of +10.2%. The consensus EPS estimate for the quarter has been revised 0.2% higher over the last 30 days to the current level. Darden Restaurants' revenues are expected to be $3.25 billion, up 10% from the year-ago quarter. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Vera Bradley, Inc. (VRA) : Free Stock Analysis Report Darden Restaurants, Inc. (DRI) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research
