Former Republican Governors Call on U.S. Supreme Court to Protect Voting Rights Act
Lower Court Decision Eliminates Path for Voters to Challenge Racial Vote Dilution, Undermines Decades of Voting Rights Precedent
WASHINGTON — A group of former Republican governors, represented by the States United Democracy Center and Hogan Lovells, today filed an amicus brief in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, a case before the U.S. Supreme Court challenging an Eighth Circuit ruling that threatens voters’ ability to enforce their rights under the Voting Rights Act.
In the brief, former Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, Marc Racicot of Montana, and William F. Weld of Massachusetts urge the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the lower court’s decision, as it would eliminate private enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and strip millions of voters of their ability to challenge racially discriminatory election practices.
“This case goes to the heart of whether Americans can defend their most basic democratic rights,” said Mai Ratakonda, Program Director of Election Protection at States United Democracy Center. “For 60 years, the Voting Rights Act has ensured that voters have a remedy when their voices are silenced. As these governors point out, taking that away would leave voters in some states without those protections—and weaken one of the strongest safeguards we have against efforts to undermine the freedom to vote.”
The amicus brief was filed in a case brought by the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and other petitioners challenging North Dakota’s state legislative maps for racial discrimination. A federal district court initially found that the maps unlawfully diluted the voting strength of Native American communities in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. However, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals later ruled that private parties—including tribes and individual voters—could not bring lawsuits under Section 2, leaving enforcement solely to the federal government.
The governors argue in the brief that this outlier ruling would mean voters in seven states have no direct recourse if their right to vote is denied. It would undermine decades of precedent and create uneven protection across the country.
Key excerpts from the brief:
“The Eighth Circuit decision for which Petitioners request this Court’s review is a remarkable outlier. It stands in blatant defiance of congressional intent and nearly forty years of unbroken, nationwide precedent. It is also plainly wrong.”
“Simply put, knowing that private parties stand ready to enforce Section 2 serves as a strong deterrent against violations. States understand that private Section 2 lawsuits do not wax and wane with changing presidential or Department of Justice priorities and far exceed what would be possible under a federal-only enforcement regime.”
“Separate from the circuit split, the Court should grant certiorari to ensure that citizens’ ability to vindicate their voting rights remains uniformly available. Doing so is especially crucial now, as states—including those in the Eighth Circuit—consider engaging in mid-decade redistricting efforts.”
Read a summary of the case here. Read the full amicus brief here.
###
About the States United Democracy Center
States United is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to the rule of law and free, fair, secure elections. We provide direct support to state officials and law enforcement leaders as they uphold the law and our system of checks and balances, protect public safety, defend elections, and preserve our democracy. For more information, visit statesunited.org.