Tenth Circuit Briefs in Navajo Nation v. San Juan County

Here:

san juan county opening brief

navajo nation answer brief

Reply Brief

Prior posts here.

Eighth Circuit Denies North Dakota’s Motion for Stay in Brakebill v. Jaeger

Here:

ca8 order

motion for stay

appellee response

Prior posts here.

New Scholarship on Voting Rights Act Litigation in Indian Country

Here is Jennifer L. Robinson and Stephen L. Nelson, The Small but Powerful Voice in American Elections: A Discussion of Voting Rights Litigation on Behalf of American Indians , 70 Baylor L. Rev. 91.

The Nation: “After Stunning Democratic Win, North Dakota Republicans Suppressed the Native American Vote”

Here.

Salt Lake Tribune Editorial: “It’s time for San Juan County’s white residents to speak up for their American Indian neighbors”

Here. Try going through google news if the link doesn’t work.

San Juan County Republicans Target Navajo Candidate for County Seat

Here is “‘They’re trying to get me off the candidacy’: San Juan County is investigating one of the Navajo Democrats running in a special election.”

Here are documents submitted by Willie Greyeyes:

greyeyes atty letter

greyeyes declaration

exhibit c

exhibit d

exhibit e

press release

Federal Court Holds North Dakota Voter ID Law Has “Discriminatory and Burdensome Impact on Native Americans”

Here are the materials in Brakebill v. Jaeger (D.N.D.):

81 Motion to Dissolve PI

92 plaintiffs’ memorandum in support re motion for preliminary injunction

94 State Reply

98 Plaintiff Reply

99 DCT Order

NARF Presser here:

Court Bars Sections of ND Voter ID Law
Citing “Discriminatory and Burdensome Impact on Native Americans”

April 4, 2018 (Bismarck, ND) – Yesterday, plaintiffs achieved a substantial victory when Judge Daniel L. Hovland of the U.S. District Court of North Dakota (ND), filed an order granting in significant part plaintiff’s motion for second preliminary injunction in Brakebill, et al. v. Jaeger. Citing the “public interest in protecting the most cherished right to vote for thousands of Native Americans who currently lack a qualifying ID and cannot obtain one,” Hovland’s order prohibits the enforcement of discriminatory parts of ND’s voter ID law. Additionally, the order allows P.O. box addresses—prevalent in Native American communities—to be used to prove residency, and dramatically expands the types of ID available to voters at the polls to include any document, letter, writing, enrollment card, or other form of tribal identification issued by a tribal authority to be used in lieu of ID cards, until final resolution of the case.

This is the second time Judge Hovland has found North Dakota’s voter ID law discriminates against Native Americans, and it is the second preliminary injunction granted to plaintiffs in this matter. Following the Judge’s last order in 2016, the North Dakota Legislature tried to circumvent the requirements of the order by passing a new law, HB 1369, which intentionally excluded Native American voters living on rural reservations that lacked residential addresses by failing to provide any way for them to prove residency in order to vote. Judge Hovland found “The State has acknowledged that Native American communities often lack residential street addresses . . . Nevertheless, under current State law an individual who does not have a ‘current residential street address’ will never be qualified to vote. This is a clear ‘legal obstacle’ inhibiting the opportunity to vote.” (emphasis in original)

According to Native American Rights Fund (NARF) Voting Rights Fellow Jacqueline De León, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case, “Judge Hovland got it. He detailed the unfair nature of the state’s law and again recognized that the law created significant and unnecessary voting obstacles for Native voters in North Dakota. Laws such as these are a direct threat to the functioning of our democracy.”

Judge Hovland’s order also expands the valid forms of voter identification to include documents issued by tribal governments, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and other tribal agencies. “This distinction is significant because putting that control back in the hands of tribal organizations allows tribal governments to ensure that their citizens do not continue to be disenfranchised,” explains lead attorney on the case, NARF Staff Attorney Matthew Campbell.

Although the case will continue, with this order, the Judge has prevented the discriminatory voter ID law from disenfranchising Native voters in significant part until final determination is made in the matter. As Judge Hovland explains in his order, “common sense and a sense of fairness can easily remedy the above-identified problems to ensure that all residents of North Dakota, including the homeless as well as those who live on the reservations, will have an equal and meaningful opportunity to vote.”

The plaintiffs in Brakebill, et al. v. Jaeger are represented by the Native American Rights Fund, Richard de Bodo of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, and Tom Dickson of the Dickson Law Office.

 

New Mexico Court of Appeals Upholds Navajo New Mexico Settlement

Here are the materials:

33437 MEMO OPINION

33439 33534 MEMO OPINION

33535 FORMAL OPINION

33535 ORDER DENYING

Tenth Circuit Denies San Juan County Stay Request in Navajo Voting Rights Matter

Here is the order in Navajo Nation v. San Juan County:

Order

Prior posts here.

Federal Court Denies Motion for Stay in Navajo Nation Voting Rights Case

Here is the order in Navajo Nation v. San Juan County (D. Utah):

473 Order Denying Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment