Fact Check: North Dakota ruling could eliminate key tool for minority voter protections
What We Know
A recent ruling by a panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has significant implications for minority voter protections in North Dakota and six other Midwestern states. The ruling, which was issued on May 14, 2025, determined that private individuals and groups cannot enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through lawsuits under Section 1983 of the U.S. Code. This decision effectively removes a critical mechanism that has historically allowed private parties to challenge racial discrimination in voting (NPR) [source-1].
The case originated from a redistricting lawsuit brought by the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe, who argued that the newly drawn legislative districts diluted the voting power of Native American voters. The lower court had previously ruled in favor of the tribes, stating that the redistricting plan violated Section 2 by reducing opportunities for Native voters to elect candidates of their choice (North Dakota Monitor) [source-4]. However, the 8th Circuit's ruling reversed this decision, asserting that Section 2 does not confer an individual right that can be enforced by private lawsuits (Democracy Docket) [source-6].
Analysis
The implications of the 8th Circuit's ruling are profound. By concluding that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced by private individuals, the court has effectively limited the ability of minority groups to challenge discriminatory practices in voting. This is particularly concerning given the historical context; since 1982, over 400 actions have been brought by private plaintiffs under Section 2, leading to significant judicial decisions that have protected minority voting rights (NPR) [source-1].
The dissenting opinion from Chief Circuit Judge Steven Colloton highlighted the importance of private enforcement, noting that the majority's ruling disregards decades of precedent where private individuals have successfully brought lawsuits to enforce their voting rights (NPR) [source-1]. This dissent underscores the potential for the ruling to undermine the protections that have been established for minority voters.
The ruling also comes at a time when the Justice Department has been less active in pursuing Section 2 cases, raising concerns among voting rights advocates about the future of minority voter protections (Democracy Docket) [source-6]. The decision has been described as "radical" by legal experts, who warn that it could severely limit the enforcement of one of the most critical anti-discrimination laws in the United States (North Dakota Monitor) [source-4].
Conclusion
The claim that the North Dakota ruling could eliminate a key tool for minority voter protections is True. The 8th Circuit's decision to restrict private enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act significantly undermines the ability of minority groups to challenge discriminatory voting practices. This ruling not only contradicts decades of legal precedent but also poses a serious threat to the protections that have been established for minority voters in the affected states.
