Appeals Court Hobbles The Voting Rights Act In New Decision

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

55% : They rested that decision on their assumption that the private right of action applied to Section 2 as well.
52% : Chief Judge Lavenski Smith, another Bush appointee, dissented and would have preserved the private right of action under the VRA.
52% : Both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees in 1982, when Congress amended the statute, wrote that Congress had "clearly intended" for individuals to be able to sue under Section 2 of the law.
51% : They assert that only the U.S. attorney general can bring enforcement actions under the law.
50% : The justices had discussed Section 2 -- the part of the law under which vote dilution cases are brought in court -- in a 1996 case over a different part of the VRA.
50% : The case will likely reach the Supreme Court, a venue that has been particularly hostile to the VRA under John Roberts' stewardship, but which batted back a major challenge to the law in a surprising decision last session.
45% : "Given the weight of precedent, it is not surprising that the '[d]efendants in this case did not initially argue that Section 2 lacks a private right of action until prompted by the district court,' an issue that the district court raised sua sponte," he wrote.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.