吃瓜大本营

The ACLU, New York Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Southern California, and ACLU of Northern California filed an amicus brief in the New York Court of Appeals arguing that the New York Voting Rights Act is constitutional legislation designed to combat and remedy modern forms of discrimination in voting affecting New York. At stake in this case is whether New York鈥檚 courts uphold the State legislature鈥檚 decision to protect the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by ensuring voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process.

Nairne v. Landry poses a challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Louisiana鈥檚 House and Senate legislative maps on behalf of plaintiff Black voters and Black voters across the state.

In Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, the 8th Circuit became the first federal appeals court to rule that private plaintiffs cannot enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In doing so, the court left open the question whether private plaintiffs could enforce Section 2 through an alternative civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. 搂 1983. In this case, a divided panel on the 8th Circuit has held that plaintiffs may not use Section 1983, either. If the holding stands, Section 2 of the VRA will be functionally out of reach for voters across the 8th Circuit in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. On behalf of the NAACP Arkansas State Conference and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, the ACLU and ACLU of Arkansas has filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs' request that the full Eighth Circuit rehear and correct this decision.

When drawing its new maps, the Weld County Board of County Commissioners violated Colorado law imposing specific requirements meant to guarantee that county commission districts are drawn transparently and fairly, such that voters are empowered to elect responsive and accountable commissioners. A Colorado district court granted summary judgment to voter plaintiffs who challenged the maps, but the Board appealed the decision, arguing in part that voters lacked standing and a right of action to challenge the unlawful districts.