Brooks v. Gant – Turtle Talk

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.

Update in Oglala Sioux Voting Rights Act Case

September 28, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The federal court denied the state’s motion to dismiss. Here are the updated materials in Brooks v. Gant (D. S.D.):

South Dakota Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiffs’ Opposition

South Dakota Reply

DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

The complaint is here.

The court previously denied a motion for preliminary injunction:

DCT Order Denying Motion for PI

The ACLU submitted an amicus brief:

ACLU Amicus Brief

Now, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is pending:

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary J

Federal Court Dismisses Shannon County Voting Rights Case

March 19, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

South Dakota Motion to Dismiss

Brooks Reply Brief

South Dakota Reply

DCT Order Dismissing Brooks v Gant

We posted the complaint and motion for PI here.

ACLU Blog Post: Let Eileen Vote

February 13, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. The text:

Let Eileen Vote.

What’s new in voter suppression land today? South Dakota is trying to prevent Eileen Janis — and hundreds of other citizens — from voting.

Eileen grew up on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and does suicide prevention work. She registered to vote for the first time in 1984. “I always vote because my mom told me to,” she says.

But when she went to cast her ballot in the historic 2008 election, she found that she had been illegally removed from the voter rolls. Though she had been convicted of a felony, her sentence to probation meant that she had not lost the right to cast a ballot. “I went [to vote] with my son who had just turned 18. As soon as I tried to vote I was told no because I was a felon.”

The illegal denial of Eileen’s voting rights is part of South Dakota’s long and troubling history of violating the civil rights of Native Americans. Native Americans are highly over-represented in the criminal justice system, so denying voting rights to people on probation has an unfair and disproportionate impact on Native American voters.

The ACLU sued on behalf of Eileen and other Native Americans wrongfully purged from the rolls. We won, and South Dakota was ordered to make sure that people on probation were allowed to cast their ballots.

But the South Dakota legislature is now considering a bill that would strip Eileen and anyone else convicted of a felony of the right to vote, even if they never serve jail time and are living in their communities.

Measures designed to suppress the vote have been sweeping the nation, and South Dakota appears to be jumping on the bandwagon — but not if we can help it.

The Voting Rights Act gives the US Department of Justice (DOJ) the power to ensure that voting laws do not discriminate. Tell the DOJ to protect the right to vote in South Dakota and across the nation. And urge Congress to pass the Democracy Restoration Act, which would let Eileen — and all Americans with past convictions who are living in their communities — vote in federal elections.

Learn more about voter suppression: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

News Coverage of South Dakota Indians’ Voting Rights Suit

February 8, 2012February 7, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here. An excerpt:

Native Americans have never had an easy time getting to vote in South Dakota. In 1977, the state attorney general dismissed the Voting Rights Act as an “absurdity” and advised state officials to ignore the federal law. The state didn’t allow Native Americans into polling places until the 1940s, though federal law had given them the right to vote in 1924. In 2004, a judge stopped poll watchers from following Native Americans out of voting places and taking down their license-plate numbers.

Through the years, Native Americans in South Dakota have filed more than 20 lawsuits over their right to vote.

This month, members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe went to court. In the upcoming presidential balloting, tribal members will have only six days of early voting, when the rest of the state has 46 days to cast early ballots in the primary and general elections.

Filed in federal court this month, the lawsuit contends the disparity is discriminatory, and amounts to “a denial of the right to vote.” One civic group has branded the state’s practice “a back door poll tax.”

The complaint in the suit is here.