North Dakota is seeking the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its victory in a lawsuit over legislative boundaries, surprising other parties involved in the state’s redistricting fights and sparking concerns about an assault on the Voting Rights Act. The issue stems from a federal panel’s ruling on a lawsuit filed by Republicans challenging a redistricting map that created House subdistricts encompassing two American Indian reservations. Although proponents of the subdistricts argued they improved the chances of tribal nations electing their own members, the lawsuit was ultimately thrown out last fall by a federal three-judge panel. North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley argues that the state cannot defend the assumption by the panel that racial discrimination was justified under the Voting Rights Act.
Critics of North Dakota’s move have condemned it as a questionable legal maneuver and an attempt to undermine the Voting Rights Act. Tim Purdon, who represents tribes in a separate redistricting fight, compared the situation to hiring a lawyer who successfully wins a case, only for the lawyer to later argue for the judgment to be vacated in order to make different arguments. Legal experts like David Schultz believe the action is part of a broader assault on the Voting Rights Act, aiming to restrict racial considerations in the drawing of district lines. Several Republican-led states, including Alabama, have filed briefs with the Supreme Court urging a reversal of the decision, viewing it as an opportunity with the current conservative majority on the bench.
Kareem Crayton, a voting rights expert, highlighted the importance of treating communities of color equally in the electoral process, as mandated by the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 of the Act prohibits discriminatory voting practices based on race or color, and continued assaults on it raise questions about the commitment of states to fair election systems for all citizens. The MHA Nation Tribal Chairman expressed disappointment over North Dakota’s decision to challenge the ruling, emphasizing the importance of upholding the initial judgment. Plaintiff attorney Bob Harms, on the other hand, welcomed the state’s filing, emphasizing the need to consider constitutional principles beyond just winning or losing.
The Supreme Court will now decide whether to hold oral arguments and request further briefing on the case. Legal experts and activists are closely watching the developments surrounding North Dakota’s appeal, as it has broader implications for voting rights and the interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. The case highlights the ongoing importance of ensuring fair and equal representation for all communities in the electoral process, especially those of color. The outcome of this appeal could impact future redistricting battles and shape the interpretation of federal voting rights laws in states across the country. Critics continue to express concerns about potential attempts to undermine the Voting Rights Act and restrict the use of racial considerations in the redistricting process.
