Federal panel weakens Voting Rights Act, queuing up likely SCOTUS showdown

Federal Appeals Court Ruling Could Gut Voting Rights Act - The Michigan Star

by Eric Lendrum   A crucial decision by a federal appeals court on Monday could lead to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) losing much of its strength as a law, should the decision be upheld by the Supreme Court. Politico reports that the ruling by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that only the federal government is allowed to sue under a key section of the civil rights law, not private citizens or civil rights groups, which had used the law t…

Federal appeals court deals a blow to Voting Rights Act, ruling that private plaintiffs can’t sue

A divided federal appeals court on Monday ruled that private individuals and groups such as the NAACP do not have the ability to sue under a key section of the federal Voting Rights Act, a decision that contradicts decades of precedent and could further erode protections under the landmark 1965 law.

Federal Court Torpedoes Key Provisions Of Voting Rights Act

by Arjun Singh at CDN - A federal appeals court ruled Monday that individuals cannot sue their state governments for violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 prohibits states from gerrymandering electoral districts on the basis of race, with many voters — supported by left-wing … Click to read the rest HERE-> Federal Court Torpedoes Key Provisions Of Voting Rights Act first posted at Co…

Federal appeals court deals a blow to Voting Rights Act, ruling private plaintiffs can't sue

The 2-1 decision found that only the U.S. attorney general can enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

US court rolls back key voting rights protection

The decision — approved in a split 2-1 vote by judges — is likely to be appealed before the Supreme Court, kicking off a fresh row over voting rights in the chamber.

Federal appeals court deals a blow to Voting Rights Act, ruling private plaintiffs can't sue

The 2-1 decision contradicts decades of precedent and could further erode protections under the landmark 1965 law.