The Catch-22 that just stripped Native Americans of their voting rights in North Dakota

[babylonsister]

https://thinkprogress.org/native-americans-cant-vote-thanks-scotus-3008e7515500/

The Catch-22 that just stripped Native Americans of their voting rights in North Dakota
This is the result of a Supreme Court that hates voting rights.
Ian Millhiser
Nov 1, 2018, 4:43 pm


Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) won her 2012 race by less than 3,000 votes — in no small part due to support from Native Americans. Not long thereafter, North Dakota’s Republican legislature passed a law that effectively strips many of these Native Americans of their voting rights.

Yet, according to an order handed down by a federal judge on Thursday, this voter suppression law cannot be challenged prior to next week’s election. The practical impact is that numerous Native Americans will not cast a ballot — and a Democratic senator may lose her seat as a result.

The voter suppression law requires voters to present an ID at the polls which lists their residential mailing address. It’s a devious scheme because residents of many Native reservations live at homes without an official street address — Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern tells the story of one voter whose street is listed as “Unknown2” in a state database. So, for these voters, it may be impossible to obtain the ID they need to vote.

In April, a federal trial court blocked this law, noting that “at least 4,998 otherwise eligible Native Americans (and 64,618 non-Native voters) currently do not possess a qualifying voter ID under the new law.” That trial court’s decision was stayed in late September, however, by a panel of three appellate judges. Both of the judges who voted to reinstate the North Dakota law are Republicans. The sole judge in dissent is a Democrat.

The two Republicans argued that North Dakota’s law must remain in effect because a 2008 Supreme Court decision siding with an Indiana voter ID law established that “a plaintiff seeking relief that would invalidate an election provision in all of its applications bears ‘a heavy burden of persuasion.'” Thus, to challenge this particular law, lawyers seeking to block it had to identify specific plaintiffs who were especially likely to be disenfranchised by this law.

Bear in mind that the appeals court handed down that decision in late September, forcing voting rights lawyers to hunt for plaintiffs that would meet this narrow criteria. They eventually found them, and filed a suit on October 30 — but that turns out to be too late.

In an order handed down Thursday, Judge Daniel Hovland concludes that “it is highly important to preserve the status quo when elections are fast approaching.” To support this proposition, he cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Purcell v. Gonzalez, which held that courts should be reluctant to hand down decisions impacting a state’s election law as the election itself draws close.

If Purcell were applied fairly and neutrally to all parties, this could possibly be considered a fair outcome, but there’s another twist. Recall that the original order halting North Dakota’s law was handed down in April, and the appeals court waited until late September to reinstate the law.

That appeals court order was appealed to the Supreme Court, where Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that the April order halting the law should remain in effect. “I would grant the application to vacate the Eighth Circuit’s stay because last-minute ‘[c]ourt orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.’” Ginsburg also cited Purcell to support this claim.

It’s difficult to escape the conclusion, in other words, that courts are applying Purcell selectively. When Republican judges make it harder to cast a ballot shortly before an election, Purcell did not stop them. But now that voting rights plaintiffs want to restore their voting rights, Purcell is suddenly an insurmountable barrier.

[BSdetect]

1. Sums up what is wrong with US elections. States abusing laws in Federal election matters.

This is pure bullshit.

A disgrace.

Make voting compulsory (yes, just like seat belt laws it could be introduced).

Make election day a Saturday.

Ban gerrymandering. Why have electoral boundaries at all? Distribute seats on a percentage basis.

Automatic voter registration for citizens.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

2. Republicans -- the Anti-Democracy, Anti-Patriot party

GOPers want to select their voters, not have voters select their government representation.

[uponit7771]

3. I don't want to hear anymore of "a lot of Americans don't vote", that's because republicans make it

... hard to vote.

In early voter states etc and places were they don't fuck with people like this it's not hard to vote.

"the appeals court waited until late September to reinstate the law. "

These people are bastards, they waited nearly 6 months to overturn the stay on appeal

[Garrett78]

7. Both voter suppression and apathy are problems.

I guarantee there are people in this country who don't even realize there's an election next week.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. The state was negligent.

We all get voter i.d. cards when we register in the county. It's not a photo I.D., but if there were problems it would have been addressed at that point.

So, the state was negligent.

[RobinA]

5. I'm Wondering This Myself

When did the law requiring ID go into effect and what has the state been doing since then? How do these people do ANYTHING these days without a street address?

[fishwax]

6. North Dakota doesn't require voter registration

They're the only state that doesn't, and hasn't since 1951. You show up, show your photo ID, and get to cast a ballot. That's how it always worked.

But this time around, they changed it to that you had to show ID with a photo and a physical address, which is what is causing problems for many Native Americans, since many reservation residences don't have actual physical street addresses.

Edited to correct my erroneous assertion that ND had never had voter registration

[sl8]

8. Related story - "Thousands of Native voters in North Dakota getting free IDs"

From https://www.apnews.com/16c11874f3cb4ac6b4ffca30ff5fdb3e

Thousands of Native voters in North Dakota getting free IDs

By BLAKE NICHOLSON
October 31, 2018


FILE - In this Oct. 24, 2018, file photo, Delaine Belgarde, right, shows the new Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa ID she received free of charge on Oct. 24, 2018, in Belcourt, N.D. It will allow her to vote in November under recently tightened state voter ID rules. The four large American Indian tribes in North Dakota are providing free identification to thousands of members in advance of Tuesday's election. The effort comes in the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing the state to continue requiring street addresses on IDs, as opposed to other addresses such as post office boxes. Streets addresses aren't important on reservations, and some feel the rule could disenfranchise thousands of Native American voters. (AP Photo/Blake Nicholson, File)

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Efforts by American Indian tribes in North Dakota to provide free identification with street addresses to thousands of members in advance of Tuesday’s election are cutting into the number of Native Americans who could potentially be turned away at the polls for lack of a proper ID under recently tightened state rules.

The free programs launched with the help of groups including the Lakota People’s Law Project and the Four Directions nonprofit so far have provided more than 2,000 voters on four reservations with the proper credentials. The effort to ensure a strong Native American vote comes amid uproar over what some believe is an attempt to suppress their votes.

“We’re at our best in crisis,” said Phyllis Young, an organizer on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation for the Lakota People’s Law Project, adding that the issue “is only making us more aware of our rights, more energized, and more likely to vote this November.”

Stricter voter ID rules are taking effect after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this month allowed the state to continue requiring street addresses, as opposed to other addresses such as post office boxes. Street addresses have never been important in the Native American culture, and many tribal members aren’t aware of their address, don’t have a provable one because they’re homeless or stay with friends or relatives, or can’t afford to get an updated ID with a street address assigned through the statewide 911 system.

...

More at link.