Supreme Court Decides Brnovich v. DNC (voting rights)

On July 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court released a decision in Brnovich v. DNC that upheld two Arizona voting policies that make it harder for people—and especially people of color and Native Americans—to vote.

BACKGROUND:
On March 2, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. The case looks at whether two issues of Arizona voting law—restricting out-of-precinct ballots and ballot collection—violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In 2016, Arizona lawmakers passed laws limiting ballot collection and out-of-precinct voting. Ballot collection is an essential tool that rural Native American communities use to make voting accessible to all eligible voters.

At about 17 minutes into the hearings, Justice Sotomayor addresses the voting burdens in Native communities. The points that Justice Sotomayor raises, echo those found in the National Congress of American Indians’ (NCAI) “friends of the court” amicus brief in the case. NCAI’s brief, which was filed by the Native American Rights Fund in January, explains how American Indian and Alaska Native voters face substantial obstacles and documented discrimination as they try to participate in the American democratic process.

Native Americans are entitled to full access to the political process, but failures rooted in devastating policies and discrimination create needless barriers to the ballot.  Services such as post offices and drivers’ license sites require hours of travel, postal delivery and residential addressing is insufficient or completely absent, poorly maintained dirt roads become impassable during November election season, lack of internet and cell phone coverage abound on reservation, and insufficient economic means and transportation make it impossible to access basic government services. There also have been instances of untrustworthy election officials capitalizing on these inequities to disenfranchise voters and undermine Native American political power.  Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides much needed protections against this type of systemic voter disenfranchisement.

Read more about the barriers that Native American voters face in the report, Obstacles at Every Turn: Barriers to Political Participation Faced by Native American Voters.

NYTs: “Montana’s new voting laws violate Native Americans’ rights, a lawsuit argues.”

Here.

Complaint in Western Native Voice v. Jacobsen (Mont. 13th Jud. Dist. Ct.) here.

WaPo: “‘Jim Crow, Indian style’: How Native Americans were denied the right to vote for decades”

Here.

NARF Resources on Indian Country Voting Rights

Here.

Michigan Indian Voter Hotline

Here (Native Voter Assistance Hotline PDF):

Voter Hotline

NARF’s Michigan-specific voting assistance brochure is here.

Story of Voter Suppression of GTB Indians in Leelanau County, 1866

Here, from the Northern Express.

Ninth Circuit Dismisses Voting Rights Challenge in Yazzie v. Hobbs

Here is the opinion.

Here are the briefs.

NYTs: “For the Navajo Nation, ‘Everything Takes Time,’ Including Voting”

Here.

Ninth Circuit Oral Argument Video in Yazzie v. Hobbs [voting rights appeal]

Here:

Briefs are here.

Ninth Circuit Grants Expedited Review of Arizona Native Voting Rights Case after District Court Rejects Injunction

Here are the materials in Yazzie v. Hobbs (D. Ariz.):

48 Arizona Motion to Dismiss

61 Opposition

62 DCT Order

Here are the briefs so far in the Ninth Circuit:

Yazzie Opening Brief

League of Women Voters Amicus

Arizona Answer Brief

Reply

Prior post here.