Fact Check: North Dakota Case Could Eliminate Key Tool for Minority Voting Rights Enforcement
What We Know
In May 2025, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case of Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Michael Howe, which involved a lawsuit filed by the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe against North Dakota's Secretary of State. The plaintiffs claimed that the state's 2021 redistricting plan diluted Native American voting strength, violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 2 of the VRA prohibits vote dilution, which can occur through practices that either pack a minority group into one district or divide them among several districts to weaken their voting power (Justia Opinion Summary).
The Eighth Circuit's ruling concluded that Section 2 does not unambiguously confer an individual right that can be enforced by private plaintiffs under § 1983. This decision effectively vacated the lower court's judgment, which had previously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it for lack of a cause of action (Justia Case Summary). This ruling has significant implications for minority voting rights, particularly in states like North Dakota, where the enforcement of Section 2 has historically relied on private individuals and groups bringing lawsuits (NPR).
Analysis
The Eighth Circuit's decision has been met with considerable concern from voting rights advocates. The ruling indicates a shift in the interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, particularly regarding the ability of private individuals to enforce its provisions. Historically, private plaintiffs have been instrumental in enforcing Section 2 protections, with over 400 actions brought since 1982 (NPR). The majority opinion of the Eighth Circuit panel argued that Section 2 focuses on the entities regulated rather than creating individual rights, which raises questions about the future of private enforcement of voting rights (Justia Opinion Summary).
Critics of the ruling, including dissenting opinions from within the court, argue that this interpretation undermines decades of legal precedent and could significantly weaken protections against racial discrimination in voting (NPR). The dissenting judge emphasized the importance of private enforcement in addressing inequalities in voting opportunities for people of color, highlighting the potential consequences of limiting access to legal recourse for minority voters (NPR).
The reliability of the sources used in this analysis is high, as they include official court opinions and reputable news outlets that cover legal and voting rights issues extensively. However, it is essential to recognize that the political context surrounding these cases may introduce some bias, particularly given the involvement of Republican officials and the current administration's stance on voting rights (NPR).
Conclusion
The claim that the North Dakota case could eliminate a key tool for minority voting rights enforcement is True. The Eighth Circuit's ruling effectively limits the ability of private individuals and groups to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which has historically been a crucial mechanism for protecting minority voting rights. This decision not only affects the plaintiffs in this specific case but also sets a precedent that could hinder similar efforts across multiple states, thereby weakening the overall enforcement of voting rights protections.
