Attorney General Bonta Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Grant Review to Protect Key Provision of Voting Rights Act

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined 22 other attorneys general in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court decision that prevents individuals from suing to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race. For nearly 60 years, both the U.S. Attorney General and private citizens have been able to file lawsuits to enforce Section 2 of the VRA when they believed it was violated. In 2022, individual voters and two tribes filed a lawsuit under Section 2 of the VRA challenging North Dakota’s state legislative districts that were adopted following the 2020 census. After the district court found that the map unlawfully diluted Native Americans’ votes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and held that individual voters and organizations cannot sue to enforce Section 2 of the VRA. The Eighth Circuit is the only federal circuit in the country that has adopted this restrictive view. At the plaintiffs’ request, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily halted the implementation of the Eighth Circuit’s ruling. The plaintiffs then requested that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the case and reverse the Eighth Circuit’s decision. The amicus brief filed by Attorney General Bonta and the coalition supports this request. 

“Voting is the fundamental right from which all other rights flow, and for the past 60 years, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has helped ensure that Americans can cast their ballots free from racial discrimination. While federal enforcement has been essential, private citizens have been responsible for more than 90% of all Section 2 challenges between 1982 and 2024,” said Attorney General Bonta. “That’s why my fellow attorneys general and I are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and confirm that private citizens can continue to enforce this important provision, as they have done for decades. Especially when voting rights are at stake, citizens should not have to rely solely on distant authorities in Washington D.C. for legal action.”

The Eighth Circuit’s ruling ended the ability of private citizens in the seven states comprising the Eighth Circuit (Minnesota, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota) to enforce Section 2 when faced with racial discrimination in the electoral process. If allowed to stand, the Eighth Circuit’s decision would concentrate enforcement of Section 2 of the VRA solely in the hands of a single federal officer — the U.S Attorney General. In the amicus brief, the coalition argues that vesting Section 2 enforcement in a single federal officer, regardless of which party holds power, is inadequate and risks radical underenforcement of voting rights. The coalition points out that the U.S. Attorney General lacks the resources to monitor, investigate, and litigate voting rights violations all across the nation. 

Additionally, the coalition emphasizes the deterrent effect of robust enforcement of our voting laws. Eliminating voters’ right to bring suit under the VRA could lessen the likelihood that the law’s critical protections will be enforced, thereby reducing the incentives for state and local officials to comply with the VRA when crafting policy. As evidence, the brief highlights that, after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively struck down the VRA’s provision that required certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to receive federal pre-approval before changing voting laws, states previously subject to preclearance promptly enacted restrictive voting laws. 

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general from Minnesota, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.