Here.
The Guardian: “New Mexico’s tribal groups gear up to fight for their home”
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, May 12, 2017
Contacts: Natalie Landreth, NARF Staff Attorney, (907) 276-0680; Matt Campbell, NARF Staff Attorney, (303) 447-8760
Yesterday, the President announced the creation of the “Presidential Commission on Election Integrity,” a new body intended to investigate American voters for “improper” or “fraudulent” voting. This is not only an unprecedented attack on the American electorate, it is also completely misleading because there is virtually no voter fraud anywhere in the United States. Instead, the problems experienced by American voters are long lines, lack of polling places, lack of early voting opportunities, gerrymandered districts, and jurisdictions’ failure to follow voting laws such the Motor Voter bill and the language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. These problems are actually increasing in American elections, in large part due to the activities of people newly appointed to the Commission. Prominent advocates of voter suppression such as Kris Kobach sit on this Commission.
“This Commission is completely backwards; it is not the American people who need to be investigated, it is the jurisdictions using more suppressive tactics to keep citizens from voting,” said Natalie Landreth staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund and voting rights litigator. “Voter suppression is designed by those in power to keep themselves in power. They know as the electorate changes, their power wanes so these tactics are meant to ‘freeze the electorate’ in a way.”
The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) has litigated voting cases on behalf of American Indians and Alaska Natives since the 1980s, and it currently leads the Native American Voting Rights Coalition, a group of voting rights advocates who work in Indian Country across the United States. In this capacity, NARF encounters a wide variety of problems faced by American Indian and Alaska Native voters. These problems are many and widespread, but do not include voter fraud.
“North Dakota is a great example of how this narrative works,” said Staff Attorney Matt Campbell, who currently represents the plaintiffs in Brakebill v. Jaeger. “The state passed the strictest voter identification law in the country on the basis that they wanted to prevent voter fraud, but over the course of the case the state admitted there had never been a single case of fraud in North Dakota. It’s a myth, one designed to keep Native Americans and the elderly from voting.”
“It is ironic that this President purports to investigate election integrity since it is now known that he very likely benefitted from Russian interference in the November 2016 election,” said Landreth. “That is what needs to be investigated, not the American voters. And I want to be very clear about why the President is doing this: he is purporting to create a record that will surely form the basis for nationwide legislation to further suppress voting.”
Here are updated pleadings in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):
194 DAPL Reply re Vance Resp to Ct Order
195 SRST Opp to ACOE & DAPL Mtns for Partial Sum Judg
198 Consol Reply to Motion to Amend Complaint
198 CRST Motion to Extend Time
200 SRST Reply to Motion to Amend Complaint
201 ACOE Reply in Support of Mtn Partial Summ Judg re SRST
203 DAPL Reply in Support of ACOE Cross-Mtn for Partial Summ Judgment
205 Opinion re DAPL Mtn for Protective Order
205 Order re DAPL Mtn for Protective Order
207 CRST Reply in Support of MPSJ & Opp Cross-Mtns
208 CRST Reply in Supp of MPSJ & Opp Cross-Mtns209 Joint Appendix
213 DAPL Reply in Support of Mtn for Partial Summary Judgment
216-1 DAPL Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel
219 SRST Response to Motion to Compel
220 Intervenor Motion to Supplement the Record
221 Notice of Addition of Documents to the Record
222 Oglala Opp to Mtn to Compel
223 ACOE Resp to Mtn to Compel
224 ACOE Motion to Extend Time
225 DAPL Reply in Support of Motion to Compel
226 DAPL Unopp Mtn to Intervene
Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of Interior (D.D.C.):
An excerpt:
Plaintiff Navajo Nation (“Nation”) seeks relief for Defendants’ violations of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended, 25 U.S.C. § 5301 et seq. (“ISDEAA”), and regulations promulgated thereunder, and for Defendants’ breach of a self-determination contract made under the ISDEAA. Under the ISDEAA and governing regulations, Defendants may not decline an Indian tribe’s renewal proposal for a self-determination contract, or contract funding, if it is substantially the same as the prior contract. The Nation submitted a renewal proposal to the Department of the Interior (“Department”) for their contract covering operations of the Navajo Nation Judicial Branch that proposed funding in the amount of $17,055,477 for calendar year (“CY”) 2017. This was the same amount that the Nation sought for CY 2016 and was essentially the same amount that the Nation had previously sought for CY 2014 and CY 2015 ($17,055,517) and which had been approved by operation of law because of Defendants’ failure to decline the Nation’sCY 2014 funding proposal within the 90-day review period established by law. Nonetheless, Defendants partially declined the Nation’s renewal proposal for all funding in excess of $1,429,177.00 for CY 2017. Because Defendants’ action violates the ISDEAA and applicable regulations, the Nation is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.
Here are the materials in Nooksack Indian Tribe v. Zinke (W.D. Wash.):
19 – Nooksack Tribe’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
26 – Federal Defendants’ Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion and Cross-Motion to Dismiss
29 – Nooksack Tribe’s Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
39 – Secretary’s Reply re Motion to Dismiss
Here are the materials in Lightning Fire v. United States (D.S.D.):
Here are the materials so far in United States v. Blackhawk (D. Neb.):
Here.
Here are the materials in Asker v. Seminole Tribe of Florida (S.D. Fla.):
Askar Seminole [DE 42] Def. Seminole Ct. Resp. in Opp. to M. to Vacate
Defendant’s, the Seminole Tribe of Florida Trial Court, Motion to Dismiss
Defendant’s, The Seminole Tribe of Florida Trial Court, Response in Opposition
You must be logged in to post a comment.