Alaska Natives Sue Alaska over Election Translations

News coverage here.

Complaint when we get it.

The Hill: Indian Voting Rights Case Could Decide Control of Senate in 2015

Here.

An excerpt:

Carole Goldberg, a professor and vice chancellor at UCLA’s School of Law who has dealt extensively with Native American legal rights, said discrimination is widespread in many states with Native populations.

“There are persistent patterns where states have criminal jurisdiction on reservations and the counties that exercise this jurisdiction locate their facilities and services in a place convenient for the non-Native population and not the Native populations,” said Goldberg, who has donated to multiple Democratic candidates.

ICT Profile on the Impact of Shelby County v. Holder on Indian Country

Here.

Impact of SCT’s Voting Rights Act on Indian Country

The potential implications of Shelby County may be massive for Indian voting. I’m no expert, but eyeballing the covered jurisdictions (or should I say formerly covered jurisdictions), I see a lot of Indian country.

I see Alaska and Arizona, but thousands upon thousands of Indian voters potentially affected. I see Shannon and Todd Counties in South Dakota. Obviously Lakota territory. I even see Allegan County in Michigan, where the Gun Lake Tribe is located. [Wrong township.] There’s Robeson County in North Carolina where the Lumbees are, and Kings County in California.

Supreme Court Decides Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona — Federal Law Preempts Arizona’s Proof of Citizenship Voting Form

Here is the opinion. Congrats to Patricia Millett.

Briefs and other materials are here.

News Coverage of Yesterday’s Argument in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

Adam Liptak wrote about my favorite exchange of the day:

The question for the justices was whether that state law conflicted with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which allows voters to register using a federal form that asks, “Are you a citizen of the United States?” Prospective voters must check a box yes or no, and they must sign the form, swearing that they are citizens under penalty of perjury.

Several members of the court’s conservative wing indicated that the state was free to impose additional requirements to make sure only citizens vote.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the federal form was inadequate. “So it’s under oath,” he said. “Big deal. If you’re willing to violate the voting laws, I suppose you’re willing to violate the perjury laws.”

“Under oath,” he added, “is not proof at all. It’s just a statement.”

Patricia A. Millett, a lawyer for several groups challenging the Arizona law, responded that “statements under oath in criminal cases are proof beyond a reasonable doubt” sufficient to lead to the death penalty.

She added that tens of thousands of people had been rejected from the registration rolls because of the Arizona law, though there was no evidence that they were not citizens.

Briefs and other materials are here.

Update in Wandering Medicine v. McCulloch — Ninth Circuit Materials (so far) in Montana Voting Rights Case

Here:

Appellants Opposition to Motion

Appellees Motion to Dismiss Appeal

CA9 Order on Motion to Dismiss

News coverage here.

Lower court materials here.

BLT: Experts Debate Effects of Voting Rights Act Case on Indian Voting Rights

Here.

Excerpt:

During a February 22 media conference call with legal experts, Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, said he thinks it is the Supreme Court’s duty to reject the challenge of constitutionality of Section 5. “The Section 5 objections enforcement actions…show that the extension of Section 5 in 2006 was more than justified,” McDonald said. In his report, “Voting Rights in Indian Country,” McDonald lays out several discriminatory decisions, such as redistricting in South Dakota, which diluted the Indian vote.

However, Section 5 is not permanent and jurisdictions may terminate or “bail out” from coverage if they have not discriminated for at least 10 years. Nine states are currently covered as a whole: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.

According to Patricia Ferguson-Bohnee, law professor at Arizona State University and author of an amicus brief filed by the Navajo Nation, Section 5 has improved American Indian’s voting rights in Arizona. However, she said, voters are still facing challenges, such as distant poll locations, linguistic barriers, and restrictive ID requirements.

James Tucker, a voting rights of counsel with Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker and a primary author of the amicus brief filed by the Alaska Federation of Natives, said Section 5 remains an appropriate measure to prevent the ongoing voting discrimination against Alaska Natives. Section 203 of the Act requires that minorities in certain designated jurisdictions are to be given assistance in voting in their native language.

Andrew Cohen on SCT Voting Rights Case Amicus Briefs (and the Navajo Amicus Brief)

Here. An excerpt:

We tend to think of the mission of the Voting Rights Act as focusing exclusively upon the plight of black Americans. But the federal statute has been a grace note to Hispanic organizations and American Indians as well. National Latino groups filed a powerful brief with the justices. And the Navajo Nation filed an amicus brief in this case, and it is poignant for its reminder that while white Americans were discriminating against black Americans they also were discriminating against Native Americans. The Navajo Nation writes:

Indian people have endured a century of discrimination and overcome new obstacles each generation in order to exercise the right to vote in state and federal elections. Nowhere have these struggles been more prevalent than in the Section 5 covered jurisdictions of Apache, Navajo and Coconino Counties in Arizona the home of the Navajo Nation and Todd and Shannon Counties in South Dakota the home of the Rosebud and Oglala Sioux. The amici curiae file this brief to elucidate the importance that the Voting Rights Act and, in particular, Section 5 preclearance, has had in overcoming the purposeful efforts to disenfranchise Indian voters.

While passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 ended certain means of discrimination, Indians continued to be denied the right to vote through a variety of new strategies. As part of the 2006 reauthorization process, Congress obtained evidence that Indians continued to be disenfranchised by voting schemes, polling place discrimination and ineffective language assistance. The 2006 reauthorization was a legitimate Congressional response to the disenfranchisement. Protected by the Section 5 preclearance, voter registration and turnout have increased, but new challenges have arisen that require continued vigilance.

Navajo Nation Sues Gallup-Kinley School Board over Voting Rights

Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. Gallup-McKinley Schools Board of Education (D. N.M.):

Navajo Nation v. GMCS Complaint 12-06-12

Navajo Motion for PI