Shelby County v. Holder

Jeanette Wolfley on Enfranchising Native American Voters

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Jeanette Wolfley has posted “You Gotta Fight for the Right to Vote: Enfranchising Native American Voters,” forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law.

Here is the abstract:

Five decades ago, the Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Since its passage, the Voting Right Act has created the opportunity to vote for many racial and language minorities across the country, and has survived many challenges until 2013. The U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions involving voting rights in its 2012-2013 term. On June 25, 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, a divided Supreme Court struck down Section 4 – a key provision of the 1965 Voting Right Act (VRA) – as unconstitutional. On June 17, 2013, one week before the Shelby County decision, the Court decided another voting rights challenge. In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., the Court held that the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) preempted Arizona’s requirement that voters provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. Certainly, this decision was not as symbolic as Shelby County, but nonetheless is significant for minority voters and voters in general. In the aftermath of Shelby County, many voting rights litigators and scholars are contemplating what the case means for the future of Black and Latino minority voting rights across the country. To date, however, scholars’ and practitioners’ reaction to and focus on the Shelby County decision has not considered or identified its impact on Indian voters or reservation residents. Accordingly, this Article seeks to fill the void by examining the Shelby County and Inter Tribal Council decisions and provides some insight and effective responses with regard to their impacts on Native American voters across Indian country.

New Scholarship on How Shelby County v. Holder Affects Indian Country Voting Rights

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Ryan D. Dreveskracht has published “Enfranchising Native Americans After Shelby County v. Holder: Congress’s Duty to Act“ in the National Lawyers Guild Review.

ICT Profile on the Impact of Shelby County v. Holder on Indian Country

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Impact of SCT’s Voting Rights Act on Indian Country

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

The potential implications of Shelby County may be massive for Indian voting. I’m no expert, but eyeballing the covered jurisdictions (or should I say formerly covered jurisdictions), I see a lot of Indian country.

I see Alaska and Arizona, but thousands upon thousands of Indian voters potentially affected. I see Shannon and Todd Counties in South Dakota. Obviously Lakota territory. I even see Allegan County in Michigan, where the Gun Lake Tribe is located. [Wrong township.] There’s Robeson County in North Carolina where the Lumbees are, and Kings County in California.

BLT: Experts Debate Effects of Voting Rights Act Case on Indian Voting Rights

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Excerpt:

During a February 22 media conference call with legal experts, Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, said he thinks it is the Supreme Court’s duty to reject the challenge of constitutionality of Section 5. “The Section 5 objections enforcement actions…show that the extension of Section 5 in 2006 was more than justified,” McDonald said. In his report, “Voting Rights in Indian Country,” McDonald lays out several discriminatory decisions, such as redistricting in South Dakota, which diluted the Indian vote.

However, Section 5 is not permanent and jurisdictions may terminate or “bail out” from coverage if they have not discriminated for at least 10 years. Nine states are currently covered as a whole: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.

According to Patricia Ferguson-Bohnee, law professor at Arizona State University and author of an amicus brief filed by the Navajo Nation, Section 5 has improved American Indian’s voting rights in Arizona. However, she said, voters are still facing challenges, such as distant poll locations, linguistic barriers, and restrictive ID requirements.

James Tucker, a voting rights of counsel with Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker and a primary author of the amicus brief filed by the Alaska Federation of Natives, said Section 5 remains an appropriate measure to prevent the ongoing voting discrimination against Alaska Natives. Section 203 of the Act requires that minorities in certain designated jurisdictions are to be given assistance in voting in their native language.

Andrew Cohen on SCT Voting Rights Case Amicus Briefs (and the Navajo Amicus Brief)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. An excerpt:

We tend to think of the mission of the Voting Rights Act as focusing exclusively upon the plight of black Americans. But the federal statute has been a grace note to Hispanic organizations and American Indians as well. National Latino groups filed a powerful brief with the justices. And the Navajo Nation filed an amicus brief in this case, and it is poignant for its reminder that while white Americans were discriminating against black Americans they also were discriminating against Native Americans. The Navajo Nation writes:

Indian people have endured a century of discrimination and overcome new obstacles each generation in order to exercise the right to vote in state and federal elections. Nowhere have these struggles been more prevalent than in the Section 5 covered jurisdictions of Apache, Navajo and Coconino Counties in Arizona the home of the Navajo Nation and Todd and Shannon Counties in South Dakota the home of the Rosebud and Oglala Sioux. The amici curiae file this brief to elucidate the importance that the Voting Rights Act and, in particular, Section 5 preclearance, has had in overcoming the purposeful efforts to disenfranchise Indian voters.

While passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 ended certain means of discrimination, Indians continued to be denied the right to vote through a variety of new strategies. As part of the 2006 reauthorization process, Congress obtained evidence that Indians continued to be disenfranchised by voting schemes, polling place discrimination and ineffective language assistance. The 2006 reauthorization was a legitimate Congressional response to the disenfranchisement. Protected by the Section 5 preclearance, voter registration and turnout have increased, but new challenges have arisen that require continued vigilance.