Latest news with #TurtleMountainBand
Axios
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Supreme Court temporarily pauses rollbacks to Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court paused a lower court's ruling that would have weakened the Voting Rights Act on Thursday, granting Native American groups that brought the suit a temporary win. Why it matters: If the Supreme Court ultimately sides with the lower court, the legal battle could further diminish the landmark voting rights law when the Trump administration is already moving away from bringing civil rights cases in court. Had the lower court's decision been permitted to take effect, it would have prevented private groups in seven states from challenging race discrimination in election maps perceived to be violating the 1965 law. The intrigue: None of the justices provided reasoning for their votes, but the order did note that Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch would have denied the tribal nations' application. Catch up quick: The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, Spirit Lake Tribe and three Native American voters filed a lawsuit against North Dakota's Secretary of State in 2022, claiming that the state's redistricting plan unfairly diluted Indigenous voting power. The groups brought a lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to allow voters to sue if they think the government has diluted or denied their voting rights on the basis of race or color, according to SCOTUSblog. A district court sided in favor of the Indigenous groups and ruled that the redistricting maps violated this section of the act. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case after the district court, and ruled 2-1 that only the government can bring challenges under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. What we're watching: The two tribal nations are preparing to ask the Supreme Court to complete a full review of their case so that North Dakota can finalize which redistricting plan the state should use for elections in 2026. The intrigue: The ruling comes just weeks before the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed by President Johnson following the bloody beatings of civil rights marchers in Selma, Alabama. Since the signing of that law, the number of Black Americans elected in the U.S. has shot up from just a few in 1964 to about 9,000. A majority of Black Americans are aligned with the Democratic Party, but Black Republicans have won high-profile races in Kentucky, New Mexico and California. The bill also helped elect Native Americans, but Indigenous leaders say Native communities continue to face voter suppression, racial discrimination and systemic barriers to the ballot box. Context: A number of states with GOP-controlled legislatures have passed bills in recent years that critics argue impose new restrictions on Indigenous voters. Some GOP proposals seek to impose new address requirements despite many Native Americans lacking addresses.
Boston Globe
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court blocks North Dakota redistricting ruling that would gut key part of Voting Rights Act
Three conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, would have rejected the appeal. The court also has a separate redistricting case over a second majority Black congressional district in Louisiana. The justices heard arguments in March, but took the rare step of calling for a new round of arguments in their term that begins in October. They have yet to spell out what issues they want discussed. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up In the North Dakota case, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, with reservations 60 miles apart, argued that the state's 2021 legislative map violated the act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. Advertisement The case went to trial in 2023, and a federal judge later ordered the use of a map of the area, including the reservations that led to the election last year of three Native Americans, all Democrats, to the Republican-supermajority Legislature. But in a 2-1 ruling issued in May, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that only the Justice Department can bring such lawsuits under the law's Section 2. Advertisement The 8th Circuit also had ruled in an Arkansas case in 2023 that private individuals can't sue under the same provision. More than 90 percent of Section 2 cases have been brought through private enforcement, UCLA law professor Richard Hasen wrote on the Election Law blog. The 8th Circuit rulings conflict with decades of decisions by appellate courts that have affirmed the rights of private individuals to sue under Section 2. The Supreme Court often will step in when appeals courts around the country come to different decisions on the same legal issue. In a statement, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians Chairman Jamie Azure said, 'We are relieved that Native voters in North Dakota retain the ability to protect ourselves from discrimination at the polls. Our fight for the rights of our citizens continues. The map enacted by the North Dakota legislature unlawfully dilutes the votes of Native voters, and it cannot be allowed to stand.' North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe, a Republican, who is named in the lawsuit, said his office 'will continue to follow election laws set by the North Dakota legislature or as directed by any final decisions by the courts.' The 8th Circuit covers seven states: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. In the wake of the Arkansas decision, Minnesota and other states moved to shore up voting rights with state-level protections. Dura reported from Bismarck, North Dakota.
Politico
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Supreme Court blocks North Dakota redistricting ruling that would gut key part of Voting Rights Act
Three conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, would have rejected the appeal. The court also has a separate redistricting case over a second majority Black congressional district in Louisiana. The justices heard arguments in March, but took the rare step of calling for a new round of arguments in their term that begins in October. They have yet to spell out what issues they want discussed. In the North Dakota case, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, with reservations 60 miles apart, argued that the state's 2021 legislative map violated the act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The case went to trial in 2023, and a federal judge later ordered the use of a map of the area, including the reservations that led to the election last year of three Native Americans, all Democrats, to the Republican-supermajority Legislature. But in a 2-1 ruling issued in May, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that only the Justice Department can bring such lawsuits under the law's Section 2. The 8th Circuit also had ruled in an Arkansas case in 2023 that private individuals can't sue under the same provision. More than 90 percent of Section 2 cases have been brought through private enforcement, UCLA law professor Richard Hasen wrote on the Election Law blog. The 8th Circuit rulings conflict with decades of decisions by appellate courts that have affirmed the rights of private individuals to sue under Section 2.
Yahoo
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Court denies rehearing voting rights case; group calls decision ‘loss for Native American voters'
Legislators attending a Redistricting Committee meeting Dec. 13, 2023, look at maps of different proposals. (Kyle Martin/For the North Dakota Monitor) An appeals court will not reconsider its decision finding that the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Spirit Lake Nation and three tribal citizens lack standing to bring a voting discrimination case against the state of North Dakota, a ruling that could impact the makeup of the state Legislature. The Native American Rights Fund, one of the legal groups representing the plaintiffs in the case, in a statement called the decision 'a loss for Native American voters in North Dakota.' The plaintiffs could still file a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In the lawsuit, filed in 2022, two North Dakota tribes and three Indigenous North Dakotans argued that a redistricting plan adopted by the state in 2021 diluted the power of Native voters, thereby violating the Voting Rights Act. North Dakota U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte in 2023 sided with the plaintiffs and ordered the state to adopt a different map. In a 2-1 decision in May, a panel of three judges on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that finding on the basis that private parties cannot bring lawsuits alleging racial discrimination under the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs requested that the case go before all 11 judges on the 8th Circuit for a rehearing, noting that the panel's decision is at odds with how other federal appellate circuits have interpreted the law. A total of 19 state attorneys general, a handful of advocacy groups and former Department of Justice attorneys filed briefs in support of an en banc hearing. North Dakota opposed the rehearing request. While they didn't file anything on the en banc petition, 15 other Republican-led states had previously submitted briefs to the 8th Circuit in support of North Dakota's position. North Dakota tribes ask circuit judges for rehearing of voting rights case The 8th Circuit includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska and Arkansas. It's the only circuit to rule that private individuals cannot bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which outlaws racially discriminatory voting practices. The court in a 2023 ruling in a separate case declared that it is the role of the U.S. attorney general to enforce compliance with Section 2. In the North Dakota lawsuit, the plaintiffs had attempted to use a separate civil rights law as a vehicle to file their Voting Rights Act claim. That law, Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, says people may sue for 'the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities' granted by the Constitution and federal law. They noted in briefs that for decades, the bulk of lawsuits enforcing Section 2 have been brought by private individuals. The plaintiffs reasoned that even if the court found that they can't bring a lawsuit directly under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, they still have a right to file their lawsuit through Section 1983. The 8th Circuit panel in its May ruling said this was not a viable path either. '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 previously said in a statement about the ruling. 'This decision threatens that progress and weakens our voice in state government.' Last week, the full 8th Circuit decided 7-3 not to give the case another look. The three judges who wanted an en banc hearing were Chief Judge Steven Colloton, former Chief Judge Lavenski Smith and Judge Jane Kelly. One judge didn't participate in the decision. In 2024, after Welte's ruling, three Native American lawmakers were elected to the state Legislature from District 9, drawn to include two reservations: 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. All three are Democrats. Brown is a freshman lawmaker. Marcellais had previously served 15 years in the statehouse until he lost his bid for reelection in 2022, after district lines were redrawn in 2021. Davis was first elected in 2022, then reelected last year. The 8th Circuit did not weigh in on the underlying question of whether North Dakota's original 2021 map is discriminatory; it only found that the plaintiffs do not have the right to file the suit in the first place. The May opinion indicated the appellate court would send the case back to Welte and direct him to dismiss the lawsuit. The state is still waiting to see what, if anything, will happen next in the case. The plaintiffs have about a three-month window to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the lawsuit if they choose. They have not announced whether they intend to go that route. If the 8th Circuit's decision takes effect, North Dakota would revert back to the 2021 map. Three state lawmakers would represent different districts in that scenario. 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. The state would have to decide whether the ruling disqualifies those lawmakers from finishing out their terms, according to a June memo from Legislative Council. Traditionally, when redistricting has shifted state lawmakers into different legislative districts, they have been allowed to serve until the next election cycle, the memo states. However, under the state constitution, state lawmakers are forbidden to live outside the district they represent. All three lawmakers who would change districts are up for reelection in 2026. This story was updated to correct the states in the 8th Circuit. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
North Dakota tribes want US Supreme Court to hear voting rights case
A sign in Devils Lake, North Dakota, marks the road leading to the Spirit Lake Reservation. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor) Two North Dakota Native tribes and a group of tribal citizens plan to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a court decision that found they don't have standing to sue the state of North Dakota for alleged voter discrimination. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in the ruling concluded that private voters have no way of challenging unfair voting practices under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which outlaws voter discrimination based on race. 'That decision is plainly wrong, and it will have a huge impact on Native voters,' Lenny Powell, a Native American Rights Fund attorney representing the plaintiffs, said in a Tuesday statement. The ruling came in a case involving the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Spirit Lake Nation and three tribal members, who took North Dakota to court over a 2021 redistricting map the tribes say illegally diluted the power of Native voters. Court denies rehearing voting rights case; group calls decision 'loss for Native American voters' North Dakota U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte in 2023 sided with the plaintiffs and ordered the state to adopt a different map. A panel of three 8th Circuit Court of Appeals judges in May voted 2-1 to reverse that finding. The panel indicated it would send the case back to Welte and direct him to dismiss the lawsuit. If allowed to go into effect, this decision would reinstate the original 2021 map. The plaintiffs asked the full 8th Circuit to rehear the case, though the court denied that request last week. Now the plaintiffs are gearing up to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In a brief filed Wednesday, the plaintiffs asked the 8th Circuit to allow Welte's map to stay in place until the high court decides whether it will weigh in. The court on Thursday denied the request. The 8th Circuit is the only appellate circuit to find that private individuals cannot bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court in a 2023 decision in a separate case found that it's the sole responsibility of the U.S. attorney general to enforce compliance with Section 2. The 8th Circuit's findings in the North Dakota case reaffirmed this position. The plaintiffs had attempted to use a separate civil rights statute, Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, as an alternative means of bringing their voting rights claim, but the three-judge panel ruled this was not possible. Tribes, state argue redistricting case to federal appeals court While it's very rare for the U.S. Supreme Court to agree to hear a case, the plaintiffs in their most recent brief argued that the high court may be interested in the lawsuit because of the importance of voting rights and to resolve the different positions the 8th Circuit and other circuits have taken on the issue. Because of the circuit split, the plaintiffs think there is a 'reasonable probability' that at least four of the nine justices on the Supreme Court will want to review the case. The plaintiffs are hopeful the Supreme Court will ultimately reverse the 8th Circuit's decision. The Supreme Court has always allowed private individuals to file discrimination claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, they argue in the brief. North Dakota maintains that the 2021 map is not discriminatory and that the tribes lack standing to sue. The 8th Circuit includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska and Arkansas. This story was updated to correct the states in the 8th Circuit and to update the status of a motion. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Solve the daily Crossword
