voting rights

Tristan Ahtone: “Democrats, Don’t Take Native American Voters for Granted”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the New York Times, here.

Slate: “North Dakota’s Voter ID Law Will Disenfranchise Thousands of Native Americans, Imperiling Heitkamp”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

More from Jezebel.

And Above the Law.

SCOTUS Refuses to Stay New Election Rules in North Dakota Voting Rights Act Matter . . .

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Despite the fact that the primary has already been held under the other rules.

Here is the order in Brakebill v. Jaeger, with the dissent by RBG and Kagan:

18A335 Brakebill v. Jaeger

Prior posts here.

Brakebill v. Jaeger SCOTUS Application for Stay

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Application

Prior posts here.

Split Eighth Circuit Stays Lower Court Order Favoring Indian Voting Rights

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Brakebill v Jaeger:

18-1725_documents.pdf

Briefs here.

Split Ninth Circuit Panel Approves Voting Rules in Arizona Intended to Make Voting Harder for People of Color

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Democratic National Committee v. Reagan.

An excerpt from Chief Judge Thomas’ dissent:

“No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live.” Wesberry v.  Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964). Our right to vote benefits government as much as it benefits us: a representative democracy requires participation, and the people require representatives accountable to them. Arizona’s electoral scheme impedes this ideal and has the effect of disenfranchising Arizonans of African American, Hispanic, and Native American descent. 

Arizona’s policy of wholly discarding—rather than partially counting—votes cast out-of-precinct has a disproportionate effect on racial and ethnic minority groups. It violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), and it unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote guaranteed by the First Amendment and incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Eighth Circuit Briefs in Brakebill v. Jaeger

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Entry ID 4667021 ACCEPTED Appellant’s Brief, Civil No. 18-1725 (8th Cir. May 30, 2018) (00190584x9D7F5)

Engry ID 4678343 ACCEPTED Appellees’ Brief 2018.07.02 (00191936x9D7F5)

Entry ID 4683480 Reply Brief of Appellant 2018.07.17 (00192205x9D7F5)

Prior posts here.

Opinion in the Grayeyes Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the written order in Grayeyes v. Cox (D. Utah):

94 dct order

Prior posts here.

Federal Court Orders Willie Grayeyes Back on Ballot in San Juan County

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

News coverage here, here, and here.

Here are most of the materials in Grayeyes v. Cox (D. Utah):

13 motion for preliminary injunction

57 San Juan county opposition to 13

65 motion to dismiss

68 reply in support of 13

92 dct order denying motion to dismiss

The order to restore Mr. Grayeyes to the ballot has not yet been filed on PACER.

Muscogee Creek Freedmen Groups Sues Interior, Muscogee (Creek) Nation Principal Chief

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band, Inc. v. Zinke (D.D.C.).

From the press release:

The Muscogee Creek Nation (“MNC”), with full knowledge and approval of the DOI, continues to deny so-called “Creek Freedmen” and their Descendants their Creek citizenship in violation of the Creek Treaty of 1866, the Constitution of the United States, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Indian Civil Rights Act. The so-called Creek Freedmen continue to be denied basic rights of citizenship including but not limited to their right to vote, right to hold office, and right to be recognized for who they are: Creek Indians by birthright, heritage, history, and culture.  The named Defendants are the Creek Nation Principal Chief,James Floyd; the United States Department of the Interior (“DOI”); and the Hon. Ryan Zinke, Secretary of DOI.