Hyperbole need not apply.

[Rigby5]

Can you cite the language of Section 2 that you believe creates a private right of enforcement?

All rights normally are subject to individual appeal to the courts for redress of grievance.
It is section 3 that alludes to the idea of only attorney generals doing it.

{...
SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.

SEC. 3. (a) Whenever the Attorney General institutes a proceeding under any statute to enforce the guarantees of the fifteenth amendment in any State or political subdivision the court shall authorize the appointment of Federal examiners by the United States Civil Service Commission in accordance with section 6 to serve for such period of time and for such political subdivisions as the court shall determine is appropriate to enforce the guarantees of the fifteenth amendment (1) as part of any interlocutory order if the court determines that the appointment of such examiners is necessary to enforce such guarantees or (2) as part of any final judgment if the court finds that violations of the fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred in such State or subdivision: Provided, That the court need not authorize the appointment of examiners if any incidents of denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race or color (1) have been few in number and have been promptly and effectively corrected by State or local action, (2) the continuing effect of such incidents has been eliminated, and (3) there is no reasonable probability of their recurrence in the future.
...}

Voting Rights Act (1965)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: An act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and for other purposes, August 6, 1965; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives View All...

www.archives.gov

 

[OKTexas]

"Frivolous"

Like what? Are you just pulling things out of your ass?

You mean other than the plaintiffs losing the majority of the cases in the last 30 years? That means the courts time and resources were wasted a majority of the time and more experienced prosecutors probably wouldn't have filed those loser cases. Civilian attorneys charge big fees and get paid win, lose or draw.

Findings: The Evolution of Section 2: Numbers and Trends – Voting Rights Initiative

.

 

[Leo123]

Part of the authoritarian project is aimed at blurring the lines between candidates/parties so that folks like Trump can convince the weak minded he is the only viable choice.

Good!

 

[OKTexas]

Americans of color disenfranchised by Republican gerrymandering won’t be able to file suit to seek relief from Republicans violating their right to vote; future Republican attorneys general certainly won’t.

This will clearly facilitate the tyranny of Republican minority rule.

You stupid commie fuck, all Americans are of color. What's there to stop everyone from filing against districts that pretty much guarantees the election of say, a muslim, hispanic, black or white? In fact courts have mandated such districts exist, which is in direct contradiction to the VRA section 2.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Ding ding ding

Exactly the goal of the white wing lawsuit.

Damn child, you'll swallow pretty much anything. LMAO

.

 

[OKTexas]

So all those hundreds of rulings were not precedent?

Do you even know what that means?

Trial courts don't establish precedent.

.

 

[MinTrut]

Keep claiming elections are stolen

You're staggering in your incompetence - I never made this claim.

while also claiming your vote counts.

Independents decide rigged elections, yes.

And you idiots wonder why we laugh at you.

So sad that you can't grasp I'm not a Trump supporter, but your mind only operates in black and white.

You should neither vote nor operate a motor vehicle.

 

[Lesh]

Trial courts don't establish precedent.

.

No. They reinforce them by FOLLOWING them

 

[Rawley]

All rights normally are subject to individual appeal to the courts for redress of grievance.

Nope. Unless Congress made it explicit, there is no implicit private right of action.

Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001)

Alexander v. Sandoval: There is no private right of action for a disparate impact claim under a regulation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

supreme.justia.com

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Appeals Court Hobbles The Voting Rights Act In New Decision​

A divided federal appellate panel took a pipe to the knees of the Voting Rights Act Monday, handing down an eyebrow-raising decision that would severely curtail the effectiveness of the landmark civil rights law.

Two of the judges on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals panel — one appointed by Donald Trump and one by George W. Bush — ruled that individuals can no longer bring lawsuits under the VRA. They assert that only the U.S. attorney general can bring enforcement actions under the law.

If the decision holds, VRA cases would nosedive even under Democratic administrations due to limited resources, and would likely stop completely under Republican ones. Currently, voting rights organizations usually collaborate with individual voters to bring VRA claims, one of the last tools with which to challenge gerrymandering on the federal level.

Chief Judge Lavenski Smith, another Bush appointee, dissented and would have preserved the private right of action under the VRA.

The case originated as a VRA lawsuit brought by the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and Arkansas Public Policy Panel alleging racial gerrymandering in the map dividing the districts for the Arkansas House of Representatives. It names state officials, including Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R), as defendants.

Appeals Court Hobbles The Voting Rights Act In New Decision

A divided federal appellate panel took a pipe to the knees of the Voting Rights Act Monday, handing down an eyebrow-raising decision that would severely curtail the effectiveness of the landmark civil rights law.

talkingpointsmemo.com

No need for using over the top descriptors like jack booted thugs are coming for the rights of minority voters. The erosion of voting rights is happening right out in the open by distinguished looking folks in black robes.

Section 2 governs vote dilution in redistricting — where states, usually red ones, pack minority voters into one district or spread them out so their voting power is diffused — and is the most effective tool left to fight racial gerrymandering in federal court. Nearly all of these cases are brought by “private litigants,” often good government groups plus a handful of individual voters in the targeted area.

Earlier this week, David Stras, an 8th Circuit Court of Appeals judge and fellow Trump appointee, enthusiastically echoed Rudofsky’s reasoning in a decision dripping with disdain for voting rights groups (in which he was joined by Judge Raymond Gruender, a George W. Bush appointee). Both Stras and Gruender had appeared on the shortlist for Supreme Court candidates during the Trump administration.

“Quarreling over district lines begins like clockwork every ten years after the United States Census,” Stras eyerolled, sniping that the advocacy groups fighting what they claimed was a gerrymandered Arkansas House map had “sued nearly everyone who had anything to do with it under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.”

Stras and Gruender agreed with Rudofsky that individuals couldn’t sue under Section 2. In fact, they wrote, only the U.S. attorney general could.

“Literally hundreds of Section 2 cases have been filed over the past several decades, and hundreds of federal judges have ruled on the merits in these cases without blinking an eye,” Travis Crum, a voting rights expert and associate professor of law at Washington University in Saint Louis, told TPM. “But two judges on the 8th Circuit decided that these hundreds of other judges had just missed the issue for decades.”

Trump Judges Decimate Voting Rights Act After Supreme Court Bat Signal

Trump judges eagerly seized on Gorsuch and Thomas’ bat signal and decimated the Voting Rights Act, a decision that would unleash chaos if let stand.

talkingpointsmemo.com

If you are looking for evidence of "activist judges" conservatives are always railing about.......look no further.

Why do you think your “news” source is called Talkingpointsmemo?