General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFederal Judge Allows North Dakota Republicans to Block Native Americans From Voting
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/federal-judge-lets-north-dakota-republicans-block-native-americans-from-voting.html
Federal Judge Allows North Dakota Republicans to Block Native Americans From Voting
By Mark Joseph Stern
Nov 01, 20184:12 PM
A federal judge rejected on Thursday a lawsuit brought by Native American voters disenfranchised by North Dakotas draconian voter ID law. The decision likely means that hundreds, perhaps thousands of citizens will not be able to cast a ballot in November because they live on reservations.
Following Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamps narrow victory in 2012, North Dakotas Republican lawmakers passed a new law requiring voters to present an ID that lists their current residential street address. The measure plainly targeted Native Americans, many of whom live on rural reservations with no street names or residential addresses. Previously, residents could vote with a valid mailing address, allowing rural tribal voters to list their P.O. Box. Now they must provide an ID with their exact residencysomething that many Native Americans dont have and cant get.
For that reason, U.S. District Judge Daniel L. Hovland halted this requirement in April, citing its discriminatory and burdensome impact on Native Americans. But the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision in September, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to reinstate Hovlands ruling. (Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented.) On Tuesday, a group of Native Americans returned to court with a new lawsuit demonstrating that the residential address rule did not merely burden their right to vote; it denied them access to the ballot altogether. Their suit explained how tribal voters simply could not obtain a residential address: The states mapping systems conflict with each other, as do the states different residency databases, meaning many voters cannot secure an official address in time for the election.
Despite these roadblocks, Hovland refused to block the laws application to these unlucky voters and their tribe, Spirit Lake. Hovland conceded that their claims gave him great cause for concern. But he cited the Supreme Courts Purcell principle, which warns lower courts not to alter voting laws shortly before an election due to the risk of voter confusion. In a jab at the 8th Circuit, Hovland noted that the problems highlighted in this lawsuit were clearly predictable and certain to occur. Yet because early voting has already begunand the election is five days awayHovland concluded that a new injunction will create as much confusion as it will alleviate.
This assertion is difficult to believe. In his earlier ruling, Hovland found that the new law would prevent about 5,000 Native American voters from casting a ballot. Although tribal governments have scrambled to hand out new IDs for free, voters like Terry Yellow Fat have no recourse. The state wrongly insists that Yellow Fat lives in a liquor store, and must use the stores address to votebut if he does so, he will break the law, because it is not actually his fixed permanent dwelling. Its hard to see how a narrow order protecting people like Yellow Fat wouldve created any confusion.
Regardless, Hovlands decision will almost certainly stand as the final word on this matter before the upcoming midterms. (The 8th Circuit and Supreme Court have already turned their backs to North Dakotas disenfranchised Native American voters.) Thats terrible news for Heidi Heitkamp. This measure was designed to deny her a second term in the Senate by suppressing the votes of tribal voters, who tend to lean Democratic. It now appears that the law will work as intended.
MyOwnPeace
(17,202 posts)Our government and country is being stolen from us!
In It to Win It
(8,882 posts)We have to reclaim our property.
triron
(22,240 posts)What a lame rationalization!
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)managed to pretty much run the clock. Our problem with someone like Kavanaugh is that he will find ways to ignore or only pretend to comply with our existing structure of judicial decisions and standards in order to issue political decisions. Let's not villify Hovland because he upholds principled practices. They're all supposed to, and someone has to.
struggle4progress
(119,503 posts)former9thward
(33,151 posts)He was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Rizen
(783 posts)Republican voter suppression is a big issue. They always distract from it with made up figures about immigrants and control the dialog.
Crunchy Frog
(26,876 posts)If someone "wins" because of mass, targeted disenfranchisement, we shouldn't regard them as legitimate holders of their seats, and shouldn't regard any legislation passed with their help as legitimate either.
LAS14
(14,299 posts)... the supreme court's refusing to overturn the ND law. The story included a comment or question by Ginsberg about whether it would be burdensomely confusing, since the primary did not require a street ID. So what's the deal with this lower court story?
tia
las
former9thward
(33,151 posts)The first one said that part of the law would be a burden to Native Americans. That suit was rejected by the Supreme Court, 6-2, early this month.
The second suit, was just filed,is what the OP is about. It argues the law denies access to the ballot by NAs. The Judge, while sympathetic to some of the claims, said the suit was too close to the election. The Supreme Count has established a principle that voting rights laws must not be decided close to an election. So the judge denied the suit.
bluestarone
(17,873 posts)file another lawsuit, for not accepting their address's? THIS has got to be OVERTURNED somehow!