Federal Court Enjoins North Dakota Voter ID Law

Here is the opinion in Brakebill v. Jaeger (D.N.D.):

Doc. 50 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Prior materials here.

NARF press release here.

NYTs coverage here.

ACLU of Montana Seeks Indigenous Justice Outreach Coordinator

Link to job announcement here.

Applications will be reviewed beginning the week of July 25, 2016 and will be accepted until the position is filled.

Law in Support of Preliminary Injunction Against North Dakota Voter ID Law

Link to press release from NARF here.

Download Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support here.

Doc. 45 Brief in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 2016 07 05 (00137735x9D7F5)

Doc. 48 Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injuction 2016 07 18 (00138490x9D7F5)

Link to previous coverage here.

Pine Ridge Reservation Voting Rights Case Fails

Here are the materials in Poor Bear v. County of Jackson SD (D. S.D.):

46 Motion to Dismiss

51 Opposition

56 Poor Bear Motion for Summary J

66 Reply

92 DCT Order Granting 46

Lumbee Tribal Members Amicus Brief in Challenge to North Carolina’s Voter ID Law

Here is the brief of Pearlein Revels, Louise Mitchell, Eric Locklear, and Anita Hammonds Blanks in Support of Plaintiffs in North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCory:

Amicus Brief

One of our great friends Jeanette Wolfley is counsel for amici!

Nooksack Tribal Council Advertises for Chief Judge

Link to Craigslist ad here.

United States Files Statement of Interest in Brakebill v. Jaeger

Here:

Doc. 25 – Motion for Leave to File Statement of Interest of the United States of America – Filed 4-1-2016 

Doc. 25-1 – Statement of Interest of the United States of America – Filed 4-1-2016 

Complaint and motion to dismiss here and here.

Patty Ferguson-Bohnee on Indian Voting Rights in Arizona

Patty Ferguson-Bohnee has posted “The History of Indian Voting Rights in Arizona: Overcoming Decades of Voter Suppression,” which she published in the Arizona State Law Journal. Here is the abstract:

Native Americans “have experienced a long history of disenfranchisement as a matter of law and of practice.” This comes from a complicated and contradictory history of laws and policy that has recognized tribes as separate sovereigns, reduced tribal status to that of domestic dependent nations, sought to remove, relocate, or assimilate tribal citizens, terminated numerous indigenous nations, and has now moved to a policy of tribal self-government. Unfortunately, the right to vote for Arizona’s first people has only recently been achieved, and there are continuing threats to the electoral franchise.

Voter suppression has been used to discourage or prevent Indian people from voting in Arizona. Voter qualifications such as literacy tests were used to prevent Indians from participating in elections for approximately fifty years. Once Native Americans started voting, redistricting and vote dilution were used to reduce the effectiveness of the Native vote.

This article will review the history of Indian voting rights in Arizona. The author begins by reviewing the history of Native American voting rights and the history of voting discrimination against Native Americans in Arizona. The Voting Rights Act turned the corner for Native people to participate in the state and federal election processes. The article then discusses the current challenges faced by Native American voters and specifically discuss the voter ID law passed in 2004. The voter ID law is a roadblock that impedes full participation by all Arizona Indians. The last part of the article focuses on strategies to protect Indian voting rights. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the Section 5 coverage formula in Shelby County, tribes should consider proactive measures to ensure that tribal citizens can participate in elections.

Highly recommended.

Nooksack Appellate Court Rejects Tribe’s Effort to Bar Proposed Disenrollees’ Voting Rights

Here is the order in Belmont v. Kelly:

Belmont v. Kelly COA Order Denying Permission for Interlocutory Appeal

Relevant materials previously posted:

Belmont v. Kelly Defendant-Appellants’ Notice for Permission to FIle an Interlocutory Appeal

Belmont v Kelly Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary Injuction

Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission Sues San Juan County over Voting Rights

Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission v. San Juan County (D. Utah):

San Juan County Voting Rights – Complaint 2-25 – FINAL