On December 7, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint in response to the November 2022 general election, which was administered under the challenged redistricting plan. The court therefore declined to decide whether Section 2, on its own, implies a private right of action. § 1983 provides a private remedy for violations of Section 2 of the VRA. As to the defendant's argument that Section 2 provides no private right of action, the court found that 42 U.S.C. ![]() Jaeger-Indian Tribes have standing to protect the voting rights of their members. While acknowledging that standing was already established, the court noted that the Tribes also had standing because they asserted they were forced to divert resources in response to the redistricting plan and-consistent with the court's earlier decision in Spirit Lake Tribe v. The court concluded that the plaintiff Tribes had standing through the individual plaintiffs. On July 7, 2022, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. On April 15, 2022, the defendant moved to dismiss the action, arguing that: (1) the plaintiffs lacked standing because the Voting Rights Act does not contain a private right of action for violations of Section 2 (2) the plaintiff Tribes were not citizens of the United States and therefore were not protected under Section 2 and (3) the plaintiff Tribes lacked standing because they failed to allege that they suffered any injury-in-fact and instead only made claims on behalf of some of their members, without asserting a quasi-sovereign interest. The plaintiffs also submitted evidence of past and current discrimination against Native Americans in North Dakota. The plaintiffs asserted that they satisfied the three necessary preconditions for a Section 2 vote dilution claim: (1) the Tribes were sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district, (2) the Tribes were politically cohesive, and (3) the majority of tribal members voted sufficiently as a bloc to enable them to usually defeat the minority's preferred candidate. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants could and were required under the Voting Rights Act to draw a district in which the Turtle Mountain and Spirit Lake Reservations comprised an effective, geographically compact majority in a single legislative district. The Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation was located entirely within subdistrict 9A, but subdistrict 9B and District 15 lacked Native American majorities, thereby diluting the voting power of both Tribes. 1504, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians were "packed" into District 9 (divided into subdistricts 9A and 9B) and the Spirit Lake Tribe was "cracked" into District 15. In their complaint, the plaintiffs explained that under the new plan, House Bill No. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Peter D. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the redistricting plan violated Section 2, injunctive relief barring the defendants from administering elections under the redistricting plan and ordering them to enact a new redistricting plan, and attorneys' fees. ![]() § 1983, alleging that North Dakota's legislative redistricting violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by impermissibly reducing the number of state house seats in which Native American voters had a meaningful opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Represented by the Native American Rights Fund, the Campaign Legal Center, and private counsel, the plaintiffs sued North Dakota's Secretary of State under 52 U.S.C. ![]() District Court for the District of North Dakota. On February 7, 2022, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe, along with individual Native American voters, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. This is a case about the vote dilution of two Native American tribes through the packing and cracking of districts in North Dakota. Represented by the Native American Rights Fund, the Campaign Legal Center, and private counsel, the plaintiffs sued North Dakota's Secretary of Stat…
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |