North Dakota tribes ask circuit judges for rehearing of voting rights case
The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Spirit Lake Nation and three tribal citizens this week asked the full 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to review a three-judge panel's finding that they lack standing to bring a voting discrimination case against the state of North Dakota.
In a 2-1 decision earlier this month, the panel overruled a North Dakota federal district court's decision that a redistricting plan adopted by the state in 2021 diluted the voting power of Native voters.
'Turtle Mountain fought hard for a fair and legal map. When the state draws unlawful districts, Courts must step in to protect voters — not pave the way for injustice,' Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Chairman Jamie Azure said in a statement published by the Campaign Legal Center, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs in the suit. 'We will continue to fight for fair representation.'
Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case
The panel's decision didn't speak to whether the map itself was discriminatory; instead, the judges found that private individuals cannot use a key federal civil rights law as a vehicle to file cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which outlaws race-based voting discrimination.
The panel in its ruling sent the case back to North Dakota U.S. District Judge Peter Welte with instructions to dismiss the lawsuit. If its ruling stands, North Dakota would revert back to the 2021 map.
But if the plaintiffs' request for an en banc rehearing is granted, the case would go before all 11 judges on the 8th Circuit for review.
'Section 2 is the foundational statute that Congress enacted to fight the scourge of racial discrimination in voting, but citizens in this circuit can no longer enforce the right it provides them,' the plaintiffs argue in a brief urging the full appellate court to consider the case.
Private individuals and groups previously could file discrimination lawsuits against governments under just Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act without having to invoke Section 1983, a separate civil rights statute.
Then, the 8th Circuit in a controversial 2023 ruling on an Arkansas voting rights case found that Section 2 alone doesn't give private parties the right to sue. Instead, the circuit declared that it is the responsibility of the U.S. Attorney General to file Section 2 discrimination cases.
Tribes, state argue redistricting case to federal appeals court
For more than a year, the question remained open as to whether Section 1983 offered a viable alternative for bringing such Voting Rights Act claims. In a May 14 ruling, the three-judge panel decided it does not.
In a majority opinion, the panel wrote that the language of the Voting Rights Act indicates that Congress didn't intend for citizens to file race discrimination claims through Section 1983.
The lone dissenting judge on the panel — Chief Judge Steven Colloton — noted in his opinion that private plaintiffs have brought more than 400 actions under Section 2 since 1982.
The plaintiffs in their brief point out that the 8th Circuit is the only appellate circuit in the country to rule that Section 2 cannot be enforced through lawsuits brought by private citizens. The circuit includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska and Arkansas.
'Outside of this circuit, every American citizen can rely on an unbroken line of Supreme Court and circuit precedent to enforce the individual rights given to them by Congress in the Voting Rights Act,' their filing states. 'But as a result of the panel decision here, and the prior decision in Arkansas, American citizens in this circuit are denied that right.'
The lawsuit was triggered by a redistricting plan adopted by the North Dakota Legislature in 2021 that placed the Turtle Mountain and Spirit Lake reservations in new districts.
U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte in 2023 ruled that the new map was discriminatory and ordered the Legislature to implement a new map that placed the reservations in the same voting district.
Three Native American lawmakers from that district were elected in 2024: Sen. Richard Marcellais and Rep. Jayme Davis — both citizens of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa — and Rep. Collette Brown, a citizen of the Spirit Lake Nation and plaintiff in the lawsuit.
'The fair map we secured led to a historic first — a Spirit Lake Nation member elected to the North Dakota Legislature,' Spirit Lake Nation Chairperson Lonna Jackson-Street said in a Wednesday statement published by the Campaign Legal Center, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs in the case. 'This decision threatens that progress and weakens our voice in state government.'
Marcellais had previously served 15 years in the statehouse until he lost his bid for reelection in 2022. He was reelected in 2024.
Davis was first elected in 2022, then reelected last year.
If the 2021 map is reinstated, three state lawmakers would move to different districts, according to the North Dakota Secretary of State's Office. Rep. Colette Brown, D-Warwick, would go from representing District 9 to District 15. Rep. Donna Henderson, R-Calvin, would switch from District 15 to District 9B, while Sen. Kent Weston, R-Sarles, would switch from District 15 to District 9. They would all have to seek reelection in 2026.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
The plot to destroy Black political power
Get ready for the rage: The conservative majority on the Supreme Court looks likely to gut the last remaining parts of the Voting Rights Act. Prompted by a Black conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court will consider in October a question that answers itself — whether it is wrong to stop openly racist tactics in drawing congressional districts. Even if the right-wing justices manage to close their eyes to the racial politics involved, they will feel the heat and hear the explosive impact of the backlash to a one-sided ruling. The fuse will be lit in several Republican-controlled states, largely in the South, as white politicians begin diluting votes in Black-majority districts to silence Black voices in Congress. Deep-red state legislatures — think of South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi — will be free to demolish their Black-majority congressional districts. Those white-majority, Trump-backing state legislatures aim to bring an end to the careers of several Black Democrats in Congress, such as Reps. Cleo Fields (D-La.), Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). As a purely political exercise, Trump and his Republican allies have wanted to eliminate these districts for years, because Black voters are key to the Democratic Party's congressional strength. The Voting Rights Act allows for federal courts to look for racial damage done by gerrymandering districts. In the case now before the high court, involving redistricting in Louisiana, the state was forced to add a second Black-majority district. A federal court ruled that, with 33 percent of the state being Black, it was wrong for only one of its six congressional districts to be majority Black. But that led to a lawsuit over the new map. Along the lines of Thomas's recent call for a total end to the Voting Rights Act, the challengers contend that the law — which was created to protect equal voting rights for Black Americans — now prohibits the court from stopping white Republicans from playing politics and crushing Black power as a proportional representation of a state's racial makeup. Thomas makes the case that attention to 'race-based' construction of congressional districts is out of touch with recent history. He argues that 'specific identified instances' of racial bias, including violent voter suppression, are now distant and amount to relics of the nation's past. Last week, a federal appeals court disagreed. The Fifth Circuit ruled that Louisiana's congressional district map 'packed' and 'cracked' Black populations to limit their political power. The ruling stated there are 'decades of binding precedent' under the 15th Amendment allowing Congress to contest racial bias in redistricting. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was written in response to the nation's long history of keeping political power in white hands. Even after Black men gained the right to vote, it was common for that vote to be suppressed through violence. For perspective, South Carolina is 26 percent Black and 67 percent white. But white-majority Republican congressional districts are 86 percent of South Carolina's seven congressional districts. Only one of seven districts has a majority of Democrats and Black voters — Clyburn's district. The Supreme Court plans to hear arguments on racial redistricting on Oct. 15 — early enough for a decision that could affect the 2026 midterms. If the Black vote is diluted, the Democratic Party's ability to win seats in Congress shrinks, increasing Republican chances of retaining majorities in the House and Senate in 2026. That would keep Trump from becoming a lame duck facing a divided Congress. The Republicans' goal is to maintain majorities in Congress for Trump's last two years in the White House. Then Republicans can appoint more judges to issue more rulings that further weaken Democrats. The downward spiral for Black political power will go on and on. Trump is not hiding his interest in the outcome of gerrymandering efforts in Texas. 'We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats,' Trump told CNBC earlier this month. 'We have a really good governor, and we have good people in Texas. I got the highest vote in the history of Texas … and we are entitled to five more seats.' Excuse me, Mr. President? Neither you nor the Republican Party is entitled to any seats. Those seats belong to Americans of all colors and parties. Texas Republicans' threats to send law enforcement to forcibly return Texas Democratic legislators to the state capitol to provide a quorum for passing gerrymandered maps are a sideshow. They distract from the real effect that racially-designed gerrymandering can have on race relations and politics for decades to come. Comedian Dave Chappelle famously called Trump 'an honest liar.' In the fight over Texas redistricting, the 'honest liar' is saying that the people looking at redistricting's racial impact are themselves racist. Don't let Trump or his partisans on the high court fool you. Racial justice in Congress is at stake. Democrats will have to fight fire with fire to prevent Trump from diminishing Black voting power. Democrats owe that much to Black voters, who have carried them to electoral victories over the last 60 years. They owe it to the memory of the brave people who marched, were beaten and even died to demand voting rights only 60 years ago.
Politico
3 days ago
- Politico
10 things you need to know about California Democrats' redistricting plan
The Palm Springs portion of Calvert's district, meanwhile, would be tacked onto the seat now held by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, who would suddenly find himself in a district with a four-point Democratic advantage that spans Riverside and San Diego counties. Issa, who lost in the 2018 wave and moved to nab a safer GOP seat in 2020, would find himself once again a target. (More on those races below.) 2. Vulnerable Democrats get some relief Knocking off Republicans is just one side of the coin. Democrats also want to ease the pressure on their frontline members. Democrats in some of last year's toughest campaigns — including Adam Gray in the Central Valley, Derek Tran and Dave Min in Orange County and George Whitesides in Los Angeles County — all would see their districts turn a deeper shade of blue. Gov. Gavin Newsom, eager to maximize the intimidation factor for Texas, told Crooked Media that shoring up those vulnerable Democrats is in itself a net gain for his party. If Texas proceeds with its plan, he said, 'We'll neutralize them and we'll also punch above our weight in those four additional seats.' By that logic, the bluer tinge of the districts represented by Rep. Josh Harder and Mike Levin — two Democrats who are perpetually on the bubble of a serious challenge, but so far have not been marquee races — also add to the Democrats' spoils. Are the seats really 'additional' if Democrats already have them? No, but taking them off the board for Republicans would undeniably be a net positive for the party, allowing them to focus their resources in other tight races in California and throughout the country. 3. Don't count your chickens A lot has to go right for this to work, if 'work' is defined as 'Democrats flip enough seats in California to offset five Texas pickups.' Even if voters approve the new maps, coloring a district bluer on paper guarantees nothing. Just ask the string of Democrats who have tried, unsuccessfully, to oust Valadao from a seat where registered Democrats have for years outnumbered Republicans. The new map adds left-leaning voters to Valadao's district, but he's defied the voter-registration odds before. Meanwhile, some efforts to bolster Democratic incumbents are not guaranteed to work. Gray's Central Valley seat and the Orange County district held by Tran do get marginally more Democratic, but will still likely require Democrats to spend heavily in those races next year to ensure a win. 'I understand that Gov. Newsom is positioning himself as the top opponent to President Trump and the White House. So that's why he has ratcheted up his rhetoric,' said Nathan Gonzales, editor and publisher of Inside Elections, a nonpartisan campaign almanac. 'But he's offering some premature political analysis.' 4. Vibing with the Voting Rights Act Democrats could have sought even more gains but compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act stopped them from fully icing out Republicans on the congressional maps. They say it's a stark contrast to the ongoing, GOP-led redistricting efforts in red states like Texas — where there's little attempt to comply with prior Voting Rights Act requirements that prioritize fair representation of non-white voters through the creation of minority-majority districts and minority 'opportunity' districts.
Washington Post
3 days ago
- Washington Post
US judge denies request to halt Oak Flat land transfer to copper mining company
A U.S. district judge on Friday denied the latest request by a Native American tribe, environmentalists and other plaintiffs to stop the federal government from transferring land in Arizona for a massive copper mining project. The ruling by Judge Dominic Lanza triggered an immediate appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as a deadline fast approaches for the federal government to move ahead with the transfer next week. Lanza outlined the 'stark trade-offs' at the heart of the fight over Oak Flat, an area considered sacred . He pointed to the economic and national security benefits that would come from the land transfer and the indescribable hardships that would result from the permanent destruction of the Apaches' historical place of worship. Lanza wrote that the nation's political branches are responsible for weighing competing objectives and determining how to balance them. 'Here, Congress chose to pursue the land exchange despite the existence of many significant trade-offs and the president chose to ratify Congress's choice by signing the law into effect,' he wrote. 'As a result, the Court must accept that this choice advances the public interest and operate from that premise.' Conservation groups that are appealing the decision acknowledged that the clock was ticking but said they were not giving up. The San Carlos Apache Tribe, the group Apache Stronghold and other plaintiffs having been fighting in court for years to save what tribal members call Chi'chil Bildagoteel, which is dotted with ancient oak groves and traditional plants the Apaches consider essential to their religion. The plaintiffs have taken aim at a required environmental review that was released by the U.S. Forest Service earlier this summer. They contend the federal government did not consider the potential for a dam breach, pipeline failure or if there was an emergency plan for a tailings storage area. Before the land exchange can happen, they argued that the federal government must prepare a comprehensive review that considers 'every aspect of the planned mine and all related infrastructure.' The plaintiffs also raised concerns that an appraisal failed to account for the value of the copper deposits underlying one of the federal parcels to be exchanged The fight over Oak Flat dates back about 20 years, when legislation proposing the land exchange was first introduced. It failed repeatedly in Congress before being included in a must-pass national defense spending bill in 2014. The project has support in nearby Superior and other mining towns in the area. Resolution Copper — a subsidiary of international mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP — estimates the mine will generate $1 billion a year for Arizona's economy and create thousands of jobs. The tribe and the advocacy group Apache Stronghold sued the U.S. government in 2021 to protect Oak Flat. The U.S. Supreme Court in May rejected an appeal by the Apache group, letting lower court rulings stand.
