Here are the new materials in Large v. Fremont County (D. Wyo.):
News coverage here.
Lower court materials on the merits here. Appellate materials here.
voting rights
Pine Ridge Voting Rights Act Concludes
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
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.
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
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.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.