The case is captioned Spirit Lake Tribe v. Benson County, N.D. (D. N.D.):
Voting Rights Act
ACLU Voting Rights Project Cert Petition in Cottier v. City of Martin
Here. Lower court materials here.
Questions presented:
1. Was the district court’s original finding that the plaintiffs had not established one of the threshold factors for a finding of vote dilution under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, properly before the Eighth Circuit upon review of a superseding final judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor after remand from a prior panel?2. Is statistical evidence necessary to prove legally significant racially polarized voting under Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986)?3. Do minority voters have an equal opportunityto elect aldermen and alderwomen of their choice when the evidence shows that minority voters have had some success in electing their preferred candidates—but only in nonmunicipal elections, when “minority” voters constitute a majority of the electorate, or when their preferred candidates are white?
Laughlin McDonald’s New Book on Voting Rights in Indian Country Now Available
Just in my mailbox….
American Indians and the Fight for Equal Voting Rights
By Laughlin McDonald
Recounting Indians’ progress in the voting booth
The struggle for voting rights was not limited to African Americans in the South. American Indians also faced discrimination at the polls and still do today. This book explores their fight for equal voting rights and carefully documents how non-Indian officials have tried to maintain dominance over Native peoples despite the rights they are guaranteed as American citizens.
Laughlin McDonald has participated in numerous lawsuits brought on behalf of Native Americans in Montana, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming. This litigation challenged discriminatory election practices such as at-large elections, redistricting plans crafted to dilute voting strength, unfounded allegations of election fraud on reservations, burdensome identification and registration requirements, lack of language assistance, and noncompliance with the Voting Rights Act. McDonald devotes special attention to the VRA and its amendments, whose protections are central to realizing the goal of equal political participation.
McDonald describes past and present-day discrimination against Indians, including land seizures, destruction of bison herds, attempts to eradicate Native language and culture, and efforts to remove and in some cases even exterminate tribes. Because of such treatment, he argues, Indians suffer a severely depressed socioeconomic status, voting is sharply polarized along racial lines, and tribes are isolated and lack meaningful interaction with non-Indians in communities bordering reservations.
Cottier v. City of Martin En Banc Materials
As Indianz reported, the Eighth Circuit sitting en banc reversed a decision favoring the Indian plaintiffs in a Section 2 vote dilution case. Of note, the en banc panel reversed the decision of a prior panel establishing the law of the case, and allowed the City to file a late petition for en banc review. Where is the rule of law?
Here are the en banc materials. The merits briefs are here.
City of Martin En Banc Petition
Cottier Response to Motion for More Time to File En Banc Petition
State Of Alaska, NARF, Northern Justice Project And ACLU Reach Settlement In Yup’ik Language Voter Assistance Case
The settlement agreement in the case can be found online at: www.aclu.org/voting-rights/nick-et-al-v-bethel-et-al-settlement-agreement-state-alaska
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 19, 2010
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – The Alaska Attorney General’s Office today joined the Native American Rights Fund (NARF), the American Civil Liberties Union, the Northern Justice Project, four Alaska Native elders and four tribal governments in announcing a settlement of litigation in Nick, et al. v. Bethel, et al. According to the settlement, the state of Alaska will make enhancements to language assistance for Yup’ik-speaking voters available at elections in the Bethel area.
The resolution of the case, originally filed in June 2007 on behalf of Alaska Native elders Anna Nick, Billy McCann, Arthur Nelson and David O. David and the tribal governments of Kasigluk, Kwigillingok, Tuluksak and Tuntutuliak, was welcomed by all parties involved.
“We are committed to equality under the law and fair voting practices and effective access to the voting booth for all Alaskans,” said Alaska Attorney General Dan Sullivan. “We will vigorously implement the terms of this settlement.”
The settlement recognizes improvements to language-assistance protocols implemented by the state during the 2008 and 2009 elections, while providing for enhancements designed to ensure that limited-English-proficient voters receive effective assistance. Continue reading
Voting Rights Case in South Dakota — Janis v. Nelson
The case is Janis v. Nelson (D. S.D.). The court recently denied summary judgment in favor of the state. Here are some of the materials so far:
Janis v Nelson DCT Order on Motion for Summary J
Janis v Nelson DCT Order on Motion for Protective Order
An excerpt from the summary judgment order:
In summary, plaintiffs allege that their names were unlawfully removed from the statewide and county voter registration rolls after having been sentenced to probation for their felony convictions and that they were not given the opportunity to cast provisional ballots despite the existence of both federal and state laws authorizing the use of provisional ballots if a question exists about voter eligibility. Plaintiffs also allege that their voting rights under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act have been denied because defendants’ actions have a disparate and negative impact on Native Americans and that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is being violated because defendants’ actions constitute a change in voting practices and procedures that has not been precleared. Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, monetary, and other forms of relief.
Shocker! Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Survives!
Here is the opinion in NAMUDNO v. Holder.
Here is the tribal amicus brief filed in the case.
Long separate opinion from Justice Thomas. Is this another case of him losing the Court?
Navajo Nation’s Amicus Brief in Voting Rights Act Case
From the ASU Indian Law blog:
The Indian Legal Clinic and Sacks Tierney filed an amici brief in the above-reference case regarding the constitutionality of the Section 5 preclearance requirements. Indian Legal Clinic Student Attorney Nikki Borchardt (3L), Adjunct Professor and ASU Alum Judy Dworkin and Professor Patty Ferguson Bohnee prepared the brief.
Brief of the Navajo Nation, Anthony Wounded Head, et al. Amici are concerned that if the Court declares that the reauthorization of Section 5 is unconstitutional, American Indian voting rights will be significantly impacted and result in a reversal of the strides made in recent years to ensure greater Indian voter participation. This would negatively impact many American Indian voters who only recently secured the right to vote, continue to face discrimination in voting, and who cannot shoulder the financial burden to bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the VRA.
Eighth Circuit Favors Indian Claimants in Voting Rights Act Case
The case is Cottier v. City of Martin, South Dakota.
Here is the opinion — cottier-v-city-of-martin-ca8-opinion2
And the briefs — city-of-martin-brief and cottier-brief
Cottier v. City of Martin – Voting Rights Act Attorney Fees Order – South Dakota
The district court for the District of South Dakota issued an order granting an award for around $600K in attorney fees to the plaintiffs in a voting rights case in Indian Country. Here are the materials:
Turtle Talk 