Here's an analysis of the case Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Michael Howe, Secretary of State of North Dakota, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on May 14, 2025. You can read the decision by clicking here.

The case centers on whether private plaintiffs can enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits voting practices that dilute minority voting strength, through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, Spirit Lake Tribe, and individual Native American voters challenged North Dakota’s 2021 legislative redistricting plan, alleging it diluted Native American voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the VRA.

Key Legal Issue:

  • Does Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act confer an individual right enforceable through a private cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?

Background:

  • Section 2 prohibits vote dilution via packing or cracking minority voters.
  • The district court allowed the plaintiffs to enforce Section 2 through § 1983 and found the 2021 redistricting map violated Section 2.
  • The Secretary of State appealed, arguing no private cause of action exists for Section 2 violations through § 1983.

Court’s Analysis:

  1. Historical and Statutory Context:

    • Section 2 was enacted under Congress’s enforcement power from the Fifteenth Amendment.
    • § 1983 provides a remedy for deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution and laws.
    • The Supreme Court’s Gonzaga test requires a statute to unambiguously confer individual rights for enforcement under § 1983.

  2. Prior Eighth Circuit Decision:

    • The court referenced a recent decision (Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment) which held Section 2 does not create an implied private right of action.
    • However, this case uniquely presented the § 1983 enforcement issue.

  3. Focus of Section 2:

    • The court found Section 2 has a dual focus: it protects individual citizens' voting rights but also regulates state entities.
    • This dual focus creates ambiguity as to whether it unambiguously grants an individual right enforceable under § 1983.

  4. Application of Gonzaga and Talevski:

    • The court applied Gonzaga and recent Supreme Court precedent (Talevski) to analyze whether Congress intended Section 2 rights to be enforceable privately.
    • The conclusion was that Section 2 does not unambiguously confer an individual right enforceable under § 1983.
    • As a result, private plaintiffs cannot bring Section 2 claims under § 1983.

  5. Outcome:

    • The court vacated the district court’s judgment.
    • The case was remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of a cause of action.

Dissenting Opinion:

  • The Chief Judge dissented, arguing Section 2 clearly confers individual rights and should be enforceable under § 1983.
  • The dissent emphasized the statutory language explicitly forbidding denial or abridgment of "any citizen’s" right to vote and noted extensive precedent where private enforcement of Section 2 was accepted.
  • The dissent criticized the majority for misreading prior case law and not recognizing that the Voting Rights Act’s enforcement scheme is compatible with private enforcement.
  • On the merits, the dissent upheld the district court’s findings that the plaintiffs met the legal requirements to prove vote dilution under the Gingles test.
  • The dissent would have affirmed the district court’s injunction against the challenged districts.

Additional Points:

  • The Gingles test requires showing (1) a geographically compact minority population capable of forming a majority in a district, (2) political cohesion among the minority group, and (3) majority bloc voting that usually defeats the minority’s preferred candidate.
  • The district court found these conditions met for Native American voters in Northeast North Dakota districts under the 2021 plan, and that the plan diluted their voting strength.
  • The court applied clear error review to factual findings and upheld the district court’s determinations.
  • The court noted that race-conscious districting to create effective minority districts is permissible under the VRA and Supreme Court precedent.

Summary:

The majority held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not unambiguously grant an individual right enforceable through § 1983, so private plaintiffs cannot sue under that statute using § 1983. This led to vacating the district court's ruling on the merits and dismissing the case for lack of a cause of action.

The dissent strongly disagreed, finding that Section 2 does create enforceable individual rights under § 1983 and that the district court correctly found vote dilution in the challenged districts. The dissent would have affirmed the district court’s injunction.

This ruling restricts private enforcement of Section 2 VRA claims through § 1983 in the Eighth Circuit, potentially limiting avenues for minority voters to challenge alleged vote dilution without direct enforcement by the Department of Justice or other federal actors.

Girards Law Firm specializes in severe injury and wrongful death cases, especially those that involve birth injuries, brain damage, heart damage, spinal cord injuries or severe burns in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com by using the chat feature for more information.

Post A Comment