A Three-Judge District Court Panel, Rejects Texas’ Argument that the Voting Rights Act (VRA) precludes Private Enforcement of Section 2.
The Case: 3:21-cv-00259-DCG-JES-JVB Document 58 Filed 12/03/2021.
The United States has filed a "Statement of Interest" (ECF No. 46) urging this three-judge court to deny dismissal on this ground. The Statement of Interest makes the following representation, which we have no reason to refute: Throughout decades of Section 2 litigation challenging redistricting plans and voting restrictions in Texas and elsewhere, courts have never denied a private plaintiff the ability to bring Section 2 claims."
The United States adds that "although the Supreme Court has not addressed an express challenge to private Section 2 enforcement, the Court's precedent permits no other holding." We agree, at least to the extent that it would be ambitious indeed for a district court-even a threejudge court-to deny a private right of action in the light of precedent and history."
We also suspect that the Defendants Misconstrue Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 288-89 (2001), in which the Court held up the text of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d as paradigmatic rightscreating language. That language seems to mirror Section 2' s. 1 Absent contrary direction from a higher court, we decline to break new ground on this particular issue.
The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for want of a private cause of action to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is therefore DENIED.
Compare 42 U.S.C. § 2000d ("No person ... shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be ... subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."), with 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a) ("No ... standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State ... in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen ... to vote on account of race or color .... ").
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment