logo
Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case

Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case

Yahoo14-05-2025

Legislators attending a Redistricting Committee meeting Dec. 13, 2023, look at maps of different proposals. An appeals court on Wednesday ruled in favor of North Dakota in a voting rights case. (Kyle Martin/For the North Dakota Monitor)
A federal appeals court on Wednesday found that the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa and Spirit Lake Nation don't have standing to bring a voting discrimination claim against the state of North Dakota.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision overturned a 2023 decision by a North Dakota federal judge that found the state's 2021 redistricting plan unlawfully diluted the tribes' voting power.
Attorneys representing the tribes say the appellate court's ruling eliminates voters' ability to challenge racial discrimination under the Voting Rights Act in North Dakota and the six other 8th Circuit states.
The Campaign Legal Center in a Wednesday statement called the decision a 'stunningly antidemocratic move.'
'This decision severely undermines the Voting Rights Act and is contrary to both the intent of Congress in enacting the law and to decades of Supreme Court precedent affirming voters' power to enforce the law in court,' said Mark Gaber, senior director for redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center.
Tribes, state argue redistricting case to federal appeals court
The appellate court already limited voters' ability to challenge potential violations of the Voting Rights Act in 2023, when it decided private citizens cannot bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the law, which protects voters against racial discrimination. Only the U.S. attorney general can file such claims, the court ruled.
For a time, the question remained open as to whether voters have the right to bring those same allegations under a separate federal civil rights law: Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code.
On Wednesday, a panel of 8th Circuit judges decided the answer is no. The language of the Voting Rights Act does not authorize citizens to file race discrimination claims through Section 1983, Judge Raymond Gruender wrote in the majority opinion.
Chief Judge Steven Colloton dissented. He noted that Section 1983 says people may sue for 'the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.'
'The reference to 'and laws' encompasses any law of the United States,' Colloton wrote.
His dissent also criticizes the court's 2023 decision, writing that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 'expressly forbids 'a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.'' Since 1982, private plaintiffs have brought more than 400 actions based under Section 2, he wrote.
The lawsuit originated from a legislative redistricting plan approved by the North Dakota Legislature in 2021 following the 2020 Census that put the Turtle Mountain and Spirit Lake reservations in new districts.
Judge selects legislative district map in tribal voting rights case
The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Spirit Lake Nation and three Native North Dakota voters in 2022 filed a federal lawsuit against the North Dakota Secretary of State's Office over the map, arguing the plan was discriminatory because it weakened the power of Native voters. The lawsuit was brought under both Section 1983 and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
U.S. District Judge Peter Welte in 2023 ruled in favor of the tribes and in January 2024 ordered the map be substituted with one that placed the reservations in the same voting district.
The Secretary of State's Office appealed the ruling, asking the 8th Circuit to overturn Welte's decision on the basis that the tribes don't have standing to sue and that the redistricting plan was not discriminatory. The parties presented oral arguments to the 8th Circuit in October.
North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley and Secretary of State Michael Howe did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.
In October, North Dakota Solicitor General Philip Axt argued on behalf of the Secretary of State's Office. He told the judges that the plaintiffs want 'to go back to an ancient regime where private rights were inferred from congressional silence.'
The 8th Circuit in its Wednesday order sent the case back to Welte and directed him to dismiss the lawsuit. It was not immediately clear what impact the decision could have on the voting districts. The appellate court's opinion does not speak to the validity of the redistricting plan itself, only that the plaintiffs lack the right to sue in the first place.
'Today's ruling wrongly forecloses voters disenfranchised by a gerrymandered redistricting map, as Native voters in North Dakota have been, from challenging that map under the Voting Rights Act,' Native American Rights Funds Staff Attorney Lenny Powell said in a Wednesday statement published by the Campaign Legal Center.
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Chairman Jamie Azure and Spirit Lake Nation Chairperson Lonna Jackson-Street did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday.
The court's decision is only binding in the 8th Circuit, which includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri and Nebraska.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Targeted In Texas A&M Political Science Course Material
Trump Targeted In Texas A&M Political Science Course Material

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Targeted In Texas A&M Political Science Course Material

(Texas Scorecard) – A Texas A&M summer class uses a textbook that promotes the establishment narrative that President Donald Trump is a criminal. A source provided Texas Scorecard with information regarding the textbook for a Texas A&M political science course offered this summer semester. The textbook in question is the 11th edition of 'Keeping the Republic: Power and Citizenship in American Politics,' by Christine Barbour and Gerald C. Wright. Wright is an emeritus professor at Indiana University Bloomington. Barbour is his wife and a political science lecturer at the same university. Barbour and Wright sharply contrasted how they believed the country viewed former President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump when presenting them in the first chapter. 'When President Biden was elected in 2020, we thought we had turned a new page in our political history,' Barbour and Wright wrote in the first chapter. 'But so much of the country's attention remained on Donald Trump, who demanded the limelight during his presidency and refused to relinquish it, as well as political power.' The first chapter contained more anti-Trump messaging. The authors repeated the establishment media narrative that President Donald Trump is a criminal but didn't mention the politicization and manipulation of the prosecution against him. 'Donald Trump is okay with rules that constrain other people's behavior, but he chafes under rules that apply to him. There is a reason why, when he left office in 2021, he faced a barrage of lawsuits and criminal indictments at the state and federal level, and that reason was not that his political enemies wanted to go after him,' Barbour and Wright wrote. 'It's because he broke or ignored multiple laws he didn't want to follow or that he decided didn't apply to him, and some of the consequences caught up with him.' 'Donald Trump doesn't like to be bound by rules, even the ones written in the Constitution,' the authors continued. This textbook is required reading in American National Government, a political science course at Texas A&M offered during the summer semester from May 26 to July 4 of this year. The Bush School of Government & Public Service houses Texas A&M College Station's political science department. Named after former President George H. W. Bush, members of the Bush family serve on the school's advisory board, including former Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush. Neil Bush, son of George H.W. Bush, is board chair. Neil Bush is also the founder and chairman of the George H.W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations. Use of Barbour and Wright's textbook has not been confined to the College Station campus. Dr. Shane Gleason used the ninth edition of the textbook in a Spring 2022 political science class at Texas A&M Corpus Christi. Meanwhile, former Texas A&M Galveston professor John Carhart praised an earlier version of the book. Several of Carhart's student reviews on RateMyProfessor claim he had a very liberal bias in the classroom. Other universities have used earlier versions of this textbook. Previous versions were used at Stephen F. Austin State University in Fall 2014, and at the University of North Texas in Fall 2016 and Spring 2017. Texas A&M did not respond to a request for comment before publication.

Federal crackdown on protests raises 1st Amendment concerns
Federal crackdown on protests raises 1st Amendment concerns

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Federal crackdown on protests raises 1st Amendment concerns

It's been a chaotic few days in Los Angeles amid immigration raids, protests against those raids and violence that stemmed from the throngs who took to the streets of downtown Los Angeles. It's prompted the deployment of military personnel to augment law enforcement in L.A., something Gov. Gavin Newsom and other local leaders say is an unconstitutional use of power by federal officials. But the use of the military isn't the only alleged violation of the Constitution to emerge from this crackdown. Free-speech advocates have noted that some actions by law enforcement aren't targeting those suspected of being in the country illegally. Instead, they're taking aim at those who stand with immigrants and against federal law enforcement, which they characterize as violations of the First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful protest. Perhaps the most prominent example over the weekend was the arrest of David Huerta, president of the California branch of the Service Employees International Union, who faces a felony charge of conspiracy to impede an officer after a protest on Friday. But the alleged infringement upon First Amendment rights in Southern California dates back farther than just this weekend. In a report about Stephen Miller, a top White House advisor, pressuring federal law enforcement to deport more people, the Wall Street Journal listed a May 1 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid on a home in Irvine as an example of established rules and best practices being thrown out. That day, ICE was looking for Michael Chang, who'd allegedly put up fliers identifying ICE officers in the area. Even though Chang had moved to New York the month before, his parents' Turtle Rock home was raided while they slept by ICE agents who arrived in 'a phalanx of military vehicles.' Federal officials say Chang's fliers were an act of 'doxxing,' or publicizing personal information often with malicious intent. A Department of Homeland Security official responded to KTLA's request for an interview with an agency representative with the following statement: 'Homeland Security Investigations & U.S. Secret Service served a criminal search warrant in an upscale Irvine neighborhood, targeting the suspect they believe was responsible for posting fliers w/ the names, photos, phone numbers, & locations of ICE agents in Southern California in February.' However, Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said identifying law enforcement officers is not a crime unless there's a call for violence or harm. 'In this case, from what we know about what was on the flier, there was nothing that amounted to a threat,' Terr told KTLA. 'There's no evidence of a threat or intent to harm anybody, just the dissemination of information coupled with political criticism.' In the weeks since that Irvine raid, federal officials have kept mum, even as FIRE requested more detailed information, Terr said. U.S. Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine) released a statement last month saying his office also sought more information, but if they received any updates, they haven't been disclosed. Min's office did not return a request for more information prior to publication. Further complicating the issue, President Donald Trump and his so-called 'border czar' Tom Homan have threatened political opponents and protesters with criminal prosecution, which they say could be necessary to protect the safety of officers. But it's not just officers' safety that seems to be Trump's concern. He's said that anyone who protests the military parade on Saturday — which is also Trump's birthday — will be met with 'very heavy force.' 'If there's any protester that wants to come out, they will be met with very big force,' Trump said, as reported by NBC News. 'I haven't even heard about a protest, but you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.' Terr said that notion doesn't align with the Bill of Rights. 'That's concerning because people who are peacefully protesting shouldn't be met with any level of government force … It's very important for the government and for law enforcement to understand what the First Amendment does and doesn't protect and to let that guide their actions.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

NH high court upholds education property tax scheme as constitutional
NH high court upholds education property tax scheme as constitutional

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

NH high court upholds education property tax scheme as constitutional

The New Hampshire Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the state's education aid law, upholding a plan that lets property-rich towns keep excess money raised under a statewide property tax that supports public schools. The high court's 3-1 decision overturned the 2023 ruling of Rockingham County Superior Court Judge David Ruoff, who had said that letting richer towns keep some of that tax violated Part II, Article 5 that holds all taxes must be 'proportional and reasonable.' In the majority opinion, Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald wrote that the statewide property tax passes legal muster because it's imposed at the same rate on all cities and towns. 'We hold that the SWEPT (Statewide Education Property Tax) scheme is constitutional under Part II, Article 5 because it is 'administered in a manner that is equal in valuation and uniform in rate throughout the state,'" MacDonald said. Joining MacDonald in the majority decision were Associate Justices Patrick Donovan and Melissa Countway. Associate Justice James Bassett was the lone dissenter. He maintained that the SWEPT clearly gave a financial benefit to property-rich towns not available to other communities. 'The impact of the SWEPT scheme on taxpayers in excess SWEPT communities is anything but 'theoretical' or 'indirect': the effective SWEPT rate reduction those taxpayers enjoy is real and direct. The impact of the SWEPT scheme on taxpayers in other communities that do not generate excess SWEPT is also real and direct: those taxpayers enjoy no comparable reduction in their effective SWEPT rate,' Bassett said. In its lawsuit, the plaintiffs noted that the property-rich Lakes Region town of Moultonborough has an effective SWEPT tax rate of $0.44 per $1,000 of property value while the poorer town of Plymouth has an effective rate of $1.56. 'This disparity in effective tax rates violates Part II, Article 5 and 'is precisely the kind of taxation and fiscal mischief from which the framers of our state Constitution took strong steps to protect our citizens,'' Bassett wrote. An ongoing fight When lawmakers first created SWEPT in the 1990s, it compelled rich towns to send to the state all it had collected under the tax. This plan sparked a movement by these 'donor' towns that banded together as the Coalition Communities. For many years they lobbied the Legislature to change the statute so that they didn't have to send more than $20 million to the state for distribution to other communities as part of state aid to education. In the Tea Party-dominated election of 2010, voters gave Republicans a 3-1, veto-proof majority in both chambers of the State House. The Legislature in 2011, over the objection of then-Democratic Gov. John Lynch, got rid of donor towns, passing a law that let them keep their excess amounts. Zach Sheehan, executive director of the NH School Funding Fairness Project, said the decision allows a 'two-tiered' system of public schools to exist. 'For far too long the state has allowed this two-tiered system to operate, and this order will allow it to continue at the expense of funding for schools in the districts that need it the most,' Sheehan said in a statement. He urged lawmakers to remedy the matter by changing the SWEPT law. 'This is a major step backwards for our state, but it doesn't have to be forever,' Sheehan said. 'Just because this SWEPT loophole is allowed does not mean that the Legislature cannot act to close it. ' The Supreme Court still has another education funding case, and another appealed ruling by Ruoff, on its plate. The Ruoff ruling under appeal is the case in which the ConVal regional school district and nearly 20 others sued the state, alleging that the level of state aid to public schools wasn't enough to meet the requirement that the state support the cost of an adequate education for all students. In that matter, Ruoff concluded that the state's definition of an adequate education cost was 'woefully' short and ordered the Legislature to increase state spending to public schools by more than $500 million a year. klandrigan@

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store