Fact Check: North Dakota Case Threatens to Eliminate Private Lawsuits Enforcing Minority Voting Rights
What We Know
In May 2025, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a significant case involving the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe, which challenged North Dakota's 2021 redistricting plan. The tribes argued that the 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 undermine minority voting power (Justia Opinion Summary) 1.
Initially, the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota ruled in favor of the tribes, stating that the redistricting plan violated Section 2 and ordered a new map to be created. However, the Eighth Circuit later determined that Section 2 does not provide an individual right enforceable under § 1983, leading to the dismissal of the case (NPR) 2.
This ruling has significant implications, as it effectively removes a key avenue for private individuals and groups to enforce their voting rights under the VRA, particularly in states like North Dakota where minority populations may face systemic barriers to voting.
Analysis
The Eighth Circuit's decision has been met with criticism from voting rights advocates who argue that it undermines decades of legal precedent allowing private individuals to sue for violations of their voting rights. Historically, private parties have played a crucial role in enforcing Section 2 of the VRA, with over 400 actions brought since 1982 (NPR) 2.
The court's majority opinion, which concluded that Section 2 does not unambiguously confer individual rights, raises concerns about the future of voting rights enforcement. Dissenting opinions within the court highlighted the importance of private lawsuits in protecting minority voting rights and pointed out the potential consequences of limiting these rights (Justia Opinion Summary) 1.
The credibility of the Eighth Circuit's ruling is bolstered by its adherence to legal precedent, but the implications of its decision have sparked significant debate. Critics argue that the ruling aligns with a broader trend of judicial decisions that weaken protections for minority voters, particularly in the context of redistricting and voting rights (NPR) 2.
Conclusion
The claim that the North Dakota case threatens to eliminate private lawsuits enforcing minority voting rights is True. The Eighth Circuit's ruling effectively removes a critical mechanism for private individuals to challenge voting rights violations under Section 2 of the VRA, which could have far-reaching consequences for minority voters in North Dakota and potentially in other states within the Eighth Circuit's jurisdiction.
