Supreme Court Lets Stand a Ruling That Strips Voting Rights Protections for Disabled and Illiterate Voters in Seven States

<p>Here's the short version: the Supreme Court just quietly allowed a ruling to stand that makes it a lot harder for disabled voters and voters who can't read or write to get help at the polls — at least in seven states.</p>

<p>The court didn't issue a big dramatic opinion here. By declining to take up a lower court ruling, the justices left in place a 2025 appeals panel decision that ends a long-used tool for protecting minority voters from discrimination under the landmark Voting Rights Act in seven mainly Midwestern states.</p>

<p><b>What's Section 208, and why does it matter?</b></p>

<p>The affected states — Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota — are all covered by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that private individuals and groups no longer have the right to sue to enforce what's known as Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 208 is the part of the law that generally allows voters with a disability or inability to read or write to get help with voting from a person of their choice.</p>

<p>Think about what that actually means for a real person: if you have a visual impairment, a cognitive disability, or simply can't read, you've historically been allowed to bring a trusted helper — a friend, an interpreter, a community advocate — to help you vote. Section 208 was supposed to protect that right.</p>

<p><b>So where did this all start?</b></p>

<p>The case that the Supreme Court declined to take up was brought by Arkansas United, an immigrant advocacy group that provided Spanish-language interpreters at polling sites. They challenged an Arkansas law that bans a person who is not a poll worker from helping more than six voters cast ballots. A federal judge ruled in 2022 that the Arkansas law violates Section 208, but after GOP state officials appealed, an 8th Circuit panel found that private groups like Arkansas United don't have the right to bring this kind of lawsuit — partly because such a right isn't explicitly spelled out in the text of the Voting Rights Act.</p>

<p><b>The bigger picture — and the bigger threat</b></p>

<p>For decades, enforcement of these sections of the Voting Rights Act has mainly been driven by lawsuits from private individuals and groups. But after conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a single-paragraph opinion in 2021 questioning a private right of action, Republican officials in multiple states raised a novel legal argument: only the U.S. attorney general, they contend, has the right to bring these lawsuits.</p>

<p>That interpretation is likely to lead to a dramatic decline in voting rights lawsuits because of the Justice Department's limited resources and shifting priorities under different presidential administrations. In plain English: if only the federal government can sue to enforce your voting rights, and the federal government is busy or simply not interested, those rights effectively go unenforced.</p>

<p>The 8th Circuit is so far the only federal appeals court to break with decades of precedent on this legal issue — which means voters in other states are currently still protected. But civil rights advocates are worried this could spread.</p>

<p><b>What happens next?</b></p>

<p>Thomas Saenz, MALDEF's president and general counsel, told NPR that the civil rights group plans to eventually ask the Supreme Court to review a private right of action under Section 208 through a separate Missouri-based lawsuit, which was put on hold while the Arkansas case played out. That Missouri case was brought by Missouri Protection and Advocacy Services, which advocates for voters with disabilities, and challenges a state law that bans a person from helping more than one disabled voter or voter who cannot read or write per election — unless the helper is a poll worker or immediate family member.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, Arkansas's Republican Attorney General Tim Griffin called the Supreme Court's refusal to take up the ruling "a victory for the state" and applauded the high court for "following the plain meaning of the language in the Voting Rights Act."</p>

<p>This isn't happening in a vacuum, either. This move comes almost two months after the court's conservative supermajority issued a major ruling that further weakened the Voting Rights Act, setting off a groundswell in redistricting across the country. It's part of a larger, incremental unraveling of the law that's been going on for years — and if you live in one of those seven states and need voting assistance, the safety net just got a lot thinner.</p>