Federal Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Pine Ridge Voting Rights Act Matter

Here is the order in Poor Bear v. Jackson County (D. S.D.):

34 DCT Order

Motion to dismiss and other materials here.

Jeanette Wolfley on Enfranchising Native American Voters

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.

Federal Court Denies San Juan County’s Motion to Dismiss Navajo Nation’s Voting Rights Case

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.

United States Intervenes in South Dakota Voting Rights Case

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

23 Motion to Dismiss

27 Opposition

28 Reply

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.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction Filed in Poor Bear v. County of Jackson (S.D. Native Voting Rights Act Case)

Here is the pleading in Poor Bear v. County of Jackson (D. S.D.):

13 Motion for PI

The complaint is here.

Voting Rights Act Complaint Filed by Natives in South Dakota

Here is the complaint in Poor Bear v. County of Jackson (D. S.D.):

1 Complaint

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.

Electoral Tribunal de Mexico

I’m presenting on Native voting and political rights before the Mexican electoral tribunal. My paper is here.

The Tribunal building

IMG_7398.JPG

IMG_7372.JPG

Anthropology museum

IMG_7306.JPG

The other American presenters

IMG_7386.JPG

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.

IMG_7362.JPG

Alaska Natives Win Major Voting Rights Case

Here is the press release:

Toyukak Press Release

We posted some materials from this case, Toyukak v. Treadwell (D. Alaska), here.

Al Jazeera: “Alaska ballots fraught with issues for Yup’ik speakers”

Here.

DOJ Invitation to Consult on Voting Rights

Here:

DOJ Consultation Invitation Voting Rights