Federal Judge Allows North Dakota Republicans to Block Native Americans From Voting

[babylonsister]

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 Dakota’s 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 Heitkamp’s narrow victory in 2012, North Dakota’s 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 residency—something that many Native Americans don’t have and can’t 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 Hovland’s 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 state’s mapping systems conflict with each other, as do the state’s different residency databases, meaning many voters cannot secure an official address in time for the election.

Despite these roadblocks, Hovland refused to block the law’s 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 Court’s 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 begun—and the election is five days away—Hovland 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 store’s address to vote—but if he does so, he will break the law, because it is not actually his “fixed permanent dwelling.” It’s hard to see how a narrow order protecting people like Yellow Fat would’ve created any confusion.

Regardless, Hovland’s 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 Dakota’s disenfranchised Native American voters.) That’s 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]

1. This is an outrage!

Our government and country is being stolen from us!

[In It to Win It]

2. It has been stolen already!

We have to reclaim our property.

[triron]

3. How to hell would this cause confusion as Hovland cites??

What a lame rationalization!

[Hortensis]

11. Hovland's on their side, but the Republicans apparently

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.

“While we are disappointed with the order, Judge Hovland was correct that the evidence indicates that disenfranchisement will be ‘certain’. We are considering our options.” The tribe's attorney.

[struggle4progress]

4. W appointee

[former9thward]

9. A W appointee who ruled in favor of the NA plaintiffs in the original case.

He was overturned by the Supreme Court.

[Rizen]

5. That's BS!

Republican voter suppression is a big issue. They always distract from it with made up figures about immigrants and control the dialog.

[Crunchy Frog]

6. How can we even regard the results of elections like this one as legitimate?

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]

7. I'm confused. There was a story several weeks ago about...

... 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]

8. Two different lawsuits.

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]

10. I'm hoping that if major numbers of Native americans are turned away They (native americans) will

file another lawsuit, for not accepting their address's? THIS has got to be OVERTURNED somehow!