Here is the order in Poor Bear v. Jackson County (D. S.D.):
Motion to dismiss and other materials here.
Here is the order in Poor Bear v. Jackson County (D. S.D.):
Motion to dismiss and other materials here.
Jeanette Wolfley has posted “You Gotta Fight for the Right to Vote: Enfranchising Native American Voters,” forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law.
Here is the abstract:
Five decades ago, the Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Since its passage, the Voting Right Act has created the opportunity to vote for many racial and language minorities across the country, and has survived many challenges until 2013. The U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions involving voting rights in its 2012-2013 term. On June 25, 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, a divided Supreme Court struck down Section 4 – a key provision of the 1965 Voting Right Act (VRA) – as unconstitutional. On June 17, 2013, one week before the Shelby County decision, the Court decided another voting rights challenge. In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., the Court held that the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) preempted Arizona’s requirement that voters provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. Certainly, this decision was not as symbolic as Shelby County, but nonetheless is significant for minority voters and voters in general. In the aftermath of Shelby County, many voting rights litigators and scholars are contemplating what the case means for the future of Black and Latino minority voting rights across the country. To date, however, scholars’ and practitioners’ reaction to and focus on the Shelby County decision has not considered or identified its impact on Indian voters or reservation residents. Accordingly, this Article seeks to fill the void by examining the Shelby County and Inter Tribal Council decisions and provides some insight and effective responses with regard to their impacts on Native American voters across Indian country.
Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. San Juan County (D. Utah):
98 San Juan County Motion to Dismiss
99 Navajo Nation Motion for Partial Summary J — Fourth Claim
100 Navajo Nation Motion for Partial Summary J — Second and Third Claims
101 Navajo Nation Opposition to 98
104 San Juan County 56d Motion
105 San Juan County Reply re 98
166 Memorandum Decision and Order
An excerpt:
Having established subject-matter jurisdiction and the joinder of all necessary parties, the court finds that Navajo Nation has provided “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). It has thus satisfied the requirements of Rule 12(b)(6). Rule 12(c) further states that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed–but early enough not to delay trial–a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” The court finds no basis on which San Juan County would be entitled to judgment on the merits on the basis of this briefing.
Here are the materials in Poor Bear v. Jackson County (D. S.D.):
29 Statement of the Interest of the US
Complaint here. Other materials here.
News coverage here.
UPDATE: I should point out this doesn’t look like a formal motion to intervene, more like an amicus brief.
Here is the pleading in Poor Bear v. County of Jackson (D. S.D.):
The complaint is here.
Here is the complaint in Poor Bear v. County of Jackson (D. S.D.):
An excerpt:
This case arises from Defendants’ refusal to establish a satellite office for voter registration and in-person absentee voting in the Town of Wanblee on the Pine Ridge Reservation, thereby making voting less available to Native Americans in Jackson County in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, because in-person voter registration and in-person absentee voting are limited to the county seat of Kadok, Native American residents of Jackson County are required to travel, on average, approximately twice as far (and such travel takes approximately twice as much time) to take advantage of in-person registration and in-person absentee voting in comparison to white residents of Jackson County. Establishing a satellite office in Wanblee, on the other hand, would substantially reduce the distance and travel time for both groups, would essentially equalize the average travel time and distance for the two groups, and would thereby provide Native Americans an equivalent level of access to in-person registration and in-person absentee voting.
I’m presenting on Native voting and political rights before the Mexican electoral tribunal. My paper is here.
The Tribunal building
Anthropology museum
The other American presenters
I can’t read it very well but it seems as though the tribunal is using UNDRIP to interpret and apply Indigenous law in tribal elections.
Here is the press release:
We posted some materials from this case, Toyukak v. Treadwell (D. Alaska), here.
Here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.