voting rights – Page 15

In January 2014, Wolf Point School District officials conceded voting districts challenged in August 2013 violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. A settlement with the district calls for electing one board member from each of five voting districts to serve on the high school and elementary school boards and one member elected at-large district-wide to serve only on the high school board. Each of the new single-member districts will have populations that vary no more than 1.54 percent. This is a significant change from the existing system in which members of the majority white voting district have been electing one board member for every 143 residents and those in the majority Native American district have been electing one board member for every 841 residents. The settlement will be implemented over two years. The ACLU of Montana and the ACLU National Voting Rights Project sued the Wolf Point High School District in U.S. District Court in 2013 on behalf of seven Native American voters whose right to equal representation was being violated by these malapportioned school district voting districts that give some voters greater representation on the school board. The old districts violated the U.S. Voting Rights Act because they deprived Native Americans of the equal right to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.

News coverage here.

Voting Rights Panel at Fed Bar 2014

April 10, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Laughlin McDonald, Nina Perales, James Tucker, Martin Aguilar

New Scholarship on How Shelby County v. Holder Affects Indian Country Voting Rights

February 11, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Ryan D. Dreveskracht has published “Enfranchising Native Americans After Shelby County v. Holder: Congress’s Duty to Act“ in the National Lawyers Guild Review.

Ninth Circuit Dismisses Wandering Medicine Voting Rights Appeal as Moot

October 30, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished order:

Wandering Medicine Mem Dispo

An excerpt:

Because we conclude that the scope of the preliminary injunction only included the 2012 election, this court can no longer provide plaintiffs with the relief requested—requiring defendants to open satellite offices in time for that election. Although plaintiffs’ complaint requested “preliminary and permanent injunctive relief . . . for the 2012 primary election and . . . for all future elections,” plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction included no such language, and the evidence presented to the district court focused almost exclusively on the 2012 election. As that election has passed, there is no longer any relief that this court can provide with respect to that election.

Briefs and other materials here.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Wandering Medicine v. McCulloch — Voting Rights Case

October 11, 2013October 11, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the briefs:

Wandering Medicine Opening Brief

NCAI Amicus Brief

US Amicus Brief

County Appellees’ Brief

Wandering Medicine Reply

Oral argument audio here.

Materials on the appellees’ motion to dismiss here.

Lower court materials here and here.

Interview with Laughlin McDonald on Indian Country Voting Rights

October 7, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

An excerpt:

Your 1983 and 2013 voting-rights lawsuits have striking similarities. In other recent cases, jurisdictions you sued years ago are defendants once again. Are Native voting rights running in place?

There’s been progress—no doubt about that. Lawsuits have resulted in the creation of districts that allow Indian people to elect representatives of their choice. Tribal members have become aware of the value of participating in non-tribal elections. If you don’t vote, you’re not only denied the benefits of the government or school board, but you become its victim.

When we filed the 1983 lawsuit, no tribal member had ever been elected to Big Horn County’s commission. After we won, redistricting meant an Indian was elected. The Indian population has increased since then, and tribal members now hold several county positions. There’s been enormous change, here and elsewhere.

Fremont County, Wyo. Ordered to Pay $960K in Attorney Fees to Indian Plaintiffs in Voting Rights Case

September 24, 2013September 23, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in Large v. Fremont County (D. Wyo.):

180 Motion for Atty Fees

181 Response

182 Reply

183 DCT Order

News coverage here.

Lower court materials on the merits here. Appellate materials here.

Pine Ridge Voting Rights Act Concludes

September 23, 2013September 23, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

News coverage here. South Dakota will provide an in-person absentee voting station in Shannon County (Pine Ridge Reservation) for the same number of days as all other areas — 46 days as required under state law — compared to the six days provided to Pine Ridge. South Dakota, after the conclusion of the case, asked for costs; Judge Schreier denied that motion.

Here are the materials in Brooks v. Gant (D. S.D.):

159 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint wo Prejudice

161 South Dakota Bill of Costs

161-1 Exhibit

162 Objection

163 DCT Order Denying Bill of Costs

An excerpt from docket number 163:

Under the facts of this case, it would be unjust to require plaintiffs to pay defendants’ costs. Defendants refused to provide plaintiffs with the relief they requested until this lawsuit was filed. It was only when defendants faced actual litigation that defendants were able to work cooperatively with each other to provide the relief sought by plaintiffs. Additionally, plaintiffs stood to gain nothing personally from this Voting Rights Act litigation. The action was brought by individual plaintiffs, all of whom are persons without great means, to vindicate the voting right of all Native Americans who live on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Defendants on the other hand, who are being represented by the South Dakota Public Assurance Alliance, have the wherewithal to afford to pay their share of the costs associated with this litigation. Had defendants voluntarily agreed to provide the relief requested by plaintiffs when approached before the litigation was filed, they could have avoided the costs they are now seeking.