ATTORNEY GENERAL RAOUL URGES SUPREME COURT TO GRANT REVIEW TO PROTECT KEY PROVISION OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT

ATTORNEY GENERAL RAOUL URGES SUPREME COURT TO GRANT REVIEW TO PROTECT KEY PROVISION OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT

October 07, 2025

Chicago - Attorney General Kwame Raoul on Monday joined 22 other attorneys general to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court decision that prevents individuals from suing to enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Raoul and the coalition filed an amicus brief in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe that defends the right of individuals to sue to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a provision that is essential to ensuring Americans can cast ballots free from racial discrimination.

"For decades, the Voting Rights Act has ensured access to the ballot box has not been restricted or obstructed based on discrimination," Raoul said. "I am proud to join my fellow attorneys general to protect voters' rights, as nothing is more fundamental to the preservation of our democracy than the right to vote."

Congress enacted the VRA in 1965 to guarantee that the voting rights of the American people would not be denied or restricted based on race. Section 2 of the law specifically prohibits state and local governments from enacting racially discriminatory policies. For nearly 60 years, the U.S. attorney general and private citizens have been able to file lawsuits to enforce Section 2 of the VRA when they believed it was violated.

In 2022, individual voters and two tribes filed a lawsuit under Section 2 of the VRA challenging North Dakota's recently enacted legislative map. After a trial, a district court found that the map diluted Native Americans' votes, making it nearly impossible for them to have an electoral effect. The United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed this decision and, despite 60 years of practice to the contrary, ruled that individual voters and organizations cannot sue to enforce Section 2 of the VRA. This ruling ended the ability of private citizens in the seven states comprising the 8th Circuit - Minnesota, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota - to enforce Section 2 when faced with racial discrimination in the electoral process. The 8th Circuit is the only federal circuit in the country that has adopted this restrictive view of Section 2.

At the plaintiffs' request, the Supreme Court temporarily halted the implementation of the 8th Circuit's ruling. The plaintiffs then petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case and reverse the 8th Circuit's decision, a request Raoul and the coalition support in the brief.

In their amicus brief, Raoul and the coalition argue that private enforcement of the VRA is essential, having served as the primary method of enforcing the VRA since its enactment, and that relying exclusively on the U.S. attorney general to enforce Section 2 would be insufficient to protect voters from racial discrimination. Private citizens have been responsible for more than 90% of all Section 2 challenges between 1982 and 2024. In that same timeframe, the U.S. attorney general independently brought only 7.5% of all Section 2 challenges, amounting to just 114 cases, or less than three per year. The coalition points out that the U.S. attorney general lacks the resources to monitor, investigate and litigate all voting rights violations across the nation.

Raoul and the coalition also explain their opposition to leaving enforcement of Section 2 exclusively in the hands of one federal official, as Section 2 enforcement should not vary based on political administrations. Individually, officials may have political incentives to act or not act in certain circumstances.

Furthermore, Raoul and the coalition point out that a private right of action is essential given the urgency of Section 2 challenges, as they generally pertain to violations of voting rights with respect to an upcoming election. Without the private right of action, millions of Americans would be limited to simply sharing their concerns with the federal government, waiting to see whether their voting rights will be defended, and watching as the next election draws closer.

Additionally, the coalition emphasizes the deterrent effect of having meaningful rights to enforce our voting laws. Eliminating the private right of action could lessen the likelihood that the VRA will be enforced, thereby reducing the incentives for state and local officials to comply with the VRA when crafting policy. As evidence, they highlight that, after a Supreme Court effectively struck down the VRA's provision that required certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to receive federal pre-approval before changing voting laws, states previously subject to preclearance promptly enacted restrictive voting laws.

Joining Raoul in filing this brief are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.