How challenges to the Voting Rights Act could reshape the political landscape

Geoff Bennett:

Legal challenges regarding voting rights in multiple states from Georgia to Arkansas could alter the nation's political landscape ahead of the 2024 elections.

Laura Barron-Lopez has a closer look.

Laura Barron-Lopez:

Geoff, a special legislative session began today in Georgia to redraw its congressional and state district maps.

Lawmakers are beginning the work after a federal judge ruled Georgia's current maps violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. And, last week, the Eighth Circuit Federal Appeals court issued a ruling that could gut a key section of the Voting Rights Act. A three-judge panel said only the federal government, not private citizens or groups, can sue under Section 2 of the civil rights law.

That could roll back decades of enforcement that protected minority representation.

Joining me now is Janai Nelson, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

Janai, thanks so much for being here.

I want to just start off by asking you, what could the impact of this Eighth Circuit Appeals ruling be, beyond its effect on redistricting?

Janai Nelson, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund: Oh, the impact could be extraordinarily corrosive to our entire electoral system.

What it means, effectively, is that after almost 60 years of voters and civil rights groups and other advocates being able to bring lawsuits directly in federal court to make sure that voters are not discriminated against based on their race, that they will no longer be able to do so.

And that could easily provide a welcome mat for even more voter suppression and racial discrimination in our electoral process. So the consequences are quite grave. And it is something that we are deeply concerned about.

Laura Barron-Lopez:

And this could apply beyond just redistricting maps, but also to where polling places are located, correct?

Janai Nelson:

That's right.

It applies to every aspect of voting. So what Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does, which was the portion of that legislation that was unfortunately halted in many parts of the — in all of the Eighth Circuit and the states that are covered by the Eighth Circuit, it covers every possible voting practice or procedure.

That means voter registration. That means the location of polling sites. That means how you draw district lines for congressional, state and local bodies that govern our population. So there are many vast consequences from this ruling in the states that are covered by the Eighth Circuit.

Laura Barron-Lopez:

And the American Civil Liberties Union told me that they plan to file a petition in the coming weeks for the full Eighth Circuit to rehear this case.

But in this specific ruling from the three judges, they said that the actual wording of the Voting Rights Act, Section 2, only allows the attorney general, the Justice Department, to bring these lawsuits. What's your response to that?

Janai Nelson:

It really defies logic, it defies reason, and it defies the legislative history of the Voting Rights Act in its entirety. It also defies the entire purpose of Section 2, which is to ensure that voters have an ability to vindicate their rights.

And it's important to note that this is such an aberrant decision from this Eighth Circuit panel. And it is a three-judge panel, but only two of the three judges agreed, which is, unfortunately, enough to halt the use of this critical portion of the statute by voters and their advocates.

But this is not a normal decision. This upends nearly six decades of critical precedent, allowing voters to vindicate their rights when they are discriminated against on account of their race.

Laura Barron-Lopez:

And unlike that Eighth Circuit ruling, a federal court ruled that Georgia did violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and that means that Georgia is now going to be adding new majority-Black districts that will be added across the political map.

That includes one congressional district, two state Senate districts, and five state House districts. What does this change mean for Black voters?

Janai Nelson:

It means that Black voters will finally have a fair shot at being able to elect candidates of their choice.

It means that Black voters will no longer suffer from being manipulated by partisan actors or actors who have a nefarious purpose as they think about how they draw lines for Congress, for state legislatures, for local power.

What it does is really level the playing field for all voters, and it makes our entire election process much fairer, and it makes our governing bodies free of racial discrimination. Right now, the way the laws are drawn, it means that the entire Congress is infected by these racially discriminatory congressional districts.

Laura Barron-Lopez:

Janai, with the 30 seconds we have left, when you look at the Supreme Court upholding Section 2 just earlier this year, but also continued challenges to Section 2 from Republicans in states across the country, what is the pattern that you're seeing here?

Janai Nelson:

Well, I am very pleased with what the Supreme Court did when it ruled in favor of a case that LDF brought last term, and it was very clear that Section 2 is still very viable in combating racial discrimination in redistricting.

So I have full faith that the Supreme Court will uphold its prior precedent and find that, yes, voters and their advocates can bring lawsuits to combat racial discrimination in voting in federal courts under Section 2.

Laura Barron-Lopez:

Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, thank you for your time.