Oglala Sioux Tribe

First Tribal National Park Proposed in the Badlands

Kate Fort

From the press release:

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis today announced the release of the final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for the South Unit of Badlands National Park, recommending the establishment of the nation’s first tribal national park in partnership with the Oglala Sioux Tribe.

***

The South Unit of Badlands National Park is entirely within the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in southwestern South Dakota. The Park Service and the Tribe have worked together to manage the South Unit’s 133,000 acres for almost 40 years. If a tribal national park is enabled by Congress through legislation, the Oglala Sioux people could manage and operate their lands for the educational and recreational benefit of the general public, including a new Lakota Heritage and Education Center.

Whiteclay Update — NYTs Article on Nebraska Bill to Curtail Reservation Liquor Sales

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. A link to the bill is here.

Thanks to N.X.

Corrected Opinion in Alltel v. DeJordy

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

ALLTEL V. DEJORDY – CORRECTED OPINION

Eighth Circuit Affirms Tribal Immunity from Federal Court Discovery in Third Party Suits

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s opinion in Alltel v. DeJordy:

Alltel v Dejordy

Here are the briefs:

OST Opening Brief

Alltel Brief

OST Reply

Lower court materials are here and here.

Federal Court Dismisses Shannon County Voting Rights Case

Matthew 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.

NYTs on Ogala Sioux Tribe v. Whiteclay

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

ACLU Blog Post: Let Eileen Vote

Matthew 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

Matthew 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.

Brooks v. Gant Materials: Voting Rights Act Suit against South Dakota by Oglala Sioux Members

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

Brooks v. Gant Complaint

Brooks Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Radio interview of plaintiffs’ attorney here. H/t Pechanga.

More Bad Press on Tribal Payday Lending Companies

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here, via Indianz.

Two points on payday lenders that should be apparent by now:

1. Read the Nebraska Supreme Court decision in StoreVisions v. Omaha Tribe, where the court held that tribal immunity was waived where the tribal chair and vice chair signed a waiver document (without constitutional authority to waive immunity) in the presence of other council members, and which the court held the presence of the other council members was sufficient to waive tribal immunity. Courts will find a way to find a waiver.

2. Read David Fredericks’ rendition (pp.217-18) of the oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in C&L Enters. v. Citizen Potawatomi, where the Court directly asked the CPN attorney about the way tribes view immunity, and the deeply off-put reaction from the Court by the answer. In fact, here is that exchange (well worth the read):

Continue reading →