DLN Issues : South Dakota Government -- Racism
 Go to SD Govt General Issues
Voter Fraud Legislation Rears Ugly Head in State:
Legislation Appears to be Aimed at Indians
by Ruth Steinberger
Lakota Journal
PIERRE -- Members of South Dakota's overwhelmingly Republican legislature sponsored three bills that presented a serious effort to limit Indian participation in the election process in South Dakota.
Following the last general election, Republicans attacked the record high Indian voter turnout, alleging that fraud accounted for many voter registrations and absentee voters. Republican officials alleged that the election results were tainted by the fraud.
Ultimately investigations revealed that the claims of fraud were based on individuals who had fabricated information to support the Republican claims of vote buying and false absentee voting. Those who alleged to have voted fraudulently either were not registered voters or had not voted. Their stories about why affidavits were produced in their names have varied.
Republican officials have continued to use the fear of voter fraud in which Indian voters gain backing of legislation that could seriously impede the ability of Indians to access the ballot.
The combined effect of House Bills 1176 and 1243 will limit the ability of voters to cast ballots without presenting identification, to vote by absentee ballot without undue hardship and the ability of a party to compensate people who are involved in the voter registration process.
House Bill 1244, which would have placed limitations on poll watchers, was killed in committee. This bill would have prevented voting rights workers, including attorneys, who come from other states from acting as poll watchers. Poll watchers were an active part of addressing voting issues before and during the early civil rights movement in the Deep South.
Representative Kent Juhnke, a Republican legislator who represents a district bordering both the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Indian reservations, introduced all three bills. Juhnke is deemed to have the greatest stake in maintaining low Indian voter turnout in South Dakota.
Despite the fact that allegations of widespread fraud were disproved and those who alleged fraud acknowledged that they created the false affidavits, during testimony on the three bills, Republican legislators and officials referred to allegations of fraud and to the perception of widespread fraud in their support of these bills.
HB 1176 would require voters to provide photo identification before voting or obtaining an absentee ballot. Under this act, if a voter is not able to present a form of personal identification as required, the voter may complete an affidavit in lieu of the personal identification. The affidavit shall require the voter to provide his or her name and address and must be notarized.
According to the bill, an absentee voter desiring to vote by mail would apply to the person in charge of the election, normally the county auditor, for an absentee ballot. The application would have to be made in writing and be signed by the applicant along with the applicant's place of voting residence and the reason for which the ballot is requested. The application would contain an oath verifying the validity of the information contained in the application or request. Importantly, the oath would have to be administered by a notary public or other officer authorized by statue to administer an oath. If the application did not contain an oath, the application would be required to be accompanied by a copy of the voter's identification card.
Representative Matt McCaulley (Republican, District 10) called upon to (sic) legislature to, "Secure fair and honest elections with wholly dependable results."
Despite the fact that there was no evidence of illegal voting, McCaulley said, "It would ensure that votes lawfully cast would not be diluted by illegal votes."
McCaulley then testified about other circumstances requiring photo identification, including when purchasing gas by check, airplane travel and the purchase of cigarettes or alcohol. None of the activities he cited are ensured as rights by constitutional provision.
Julie Pearson, Pennington County Auditor, rested her support of HB 1176 on the claim of fraud in voter registration in Indian country. Her testimony acknowledged that she had asked voters for their input on alleviating fraud, an activity that has been proven to have never existed as a widespread problem. She said, "People are concerned across the state with illegal registrations and illegal requests for absentee ballots. I've talked with hundreds of voters since election day and asked them what they think we should do to alleviate the problems of the false absentee requests, the false registrations and the potential for the false voters and they believe voter ID at the polls is the way." Like the others who testified in support of these bills, Pearson never acknowledged that Republican focus on fraud is continuing to fan the flames of a problem that has never existed.
Jennifer Ring, Director of ACLU of the Dakotas, testified in opposition to HB 1176. Ring said, "South Dakota is one of 16
states required under the VRA to pre-clear voting rights changes because of the potential problems with discrimination against Native American voters. This law we consider to be violative of the Voting Rights Act because it has the effect of discriminating against Native American Voters.
Ring continued, "The provisions requiring a photo copy, or travel to the county auditors office, or submitting a photo copy of ID, or having a notarized affidavit sent in with their application are burdensome for people living on reservations and in rural areas where this would require almost automatically travel. Someone applying for an absentee ballot is presumably doing so because they are absent, have health problems or have other problems that would make it difficult for them to go to vote. You are imposing a financial burden in order to take advantage of using the absentee ballot by requiring people to travel to a location with a copy machine."
Ring continued, "In the case of Shannon County, the County Auditor's Office is not even in the county and travel to that office, or to travel to a location with a notary, would prevent many people from being able to cast an absentee ballot. For these reasons we oppose this bill."
Mary Ann Bear Heels McGowan, Sicangu, opposed HB 1176, saying, "The fundamental right of every American is the right to cast a ballot of their choice. Every time we place a restriction on this right we are undermining this right. This bill seems to be aimed at the minority population in South Dakota."
Bear Heels McGowan explained, "There are many rumors and unfounded claims going around claiming everything from voter fraud on a small scale to a large effort being made to steal the election from what people perceive as the rightful winner. The Attorney General of this state said publicly and widely that he has discovered no ballot being cast that was tainted in any way. If that is the case why are we going now and putting further restrictions on the right of people to vote?" She continued,
"If the system is working and people are being heard in an appropriate manner then it should be left alone. This bill causes undue burden in getting an absentee ballot. It was stated that we can use tribal ID, but I must remind you that traditionally, as a traditional person, that not every tribal member desires to have a photograph taken."
Bear heels McGowan noted the difficulties in meeting the requirements of the bill, saying, "This all involves travel and additional unnecessary expense because the county auditor in many cases is, in many cases, great distances from where people live. Access to travel, to a public copy machine, a notary are all limited. This provides obstacles that, in many cases, will be insurmountable and will lead to people not following through with using their right to vote. This bill will make voting difficult for one segment of the population, and that in itself is unconstitutional, unfair and discriminatory. A vote for this bill will take away from the rights of these people."
House Bill 1243 would prohibit certain payments and receipt of payments for registering voters and assisting absentee voters. Under this bill, no person may receive any wages, reward or compensation for registering voters based on the number of voters registered. A second violation of this bill would be a Class 6 felony. Under this bill, no person may employ, reward, or compensate any person to assist absentee voters based on the number of voters assisted. Again, citing the bogus allegations of fraud, Kent Juhnke, testified for HB 1243 noting, "I think it would take the perception of fraud out of it."
HB 1244 was a bill to establish a maximum number of poll watchers permitted at primary or general elections and included a requirement that poll watchers be registered South Dakota voters.
Kent Junke presented testimony alleging that he witnesses a poll watcher who came from Nebraska in Todd County become irate over the number of ballots available during the last general election. Junke noted that the number of ballots that were available should have been adequate because of previous low voter turnout. The number of ballots were less than the actual number of registered voters who could have voted at the precinct. In
testimony, Junke blamed the outside influence of an individual from Nebraska for behavior that he considered noncharacteristic of local people.
Nicholas Nemick, registered lobbyist for the Democratic Party of the State of South Dakota, said, "This bill harkens back to the deep south prior to the civil rights era. Many of the abuses of that era, including literacy tests and poll taxes, were brought to light by poll watchers, many of them from out-of-state. The poll watchers weren't locals; the locals were the ones creating the problems. The poll watchers were college students from the northeast, lawyers from New York."
Nemick said, "These three proposals are an attempt to squelch participation in South Dakota elections, that's the bottom line. After the last election there was a lot of noise and after the election people even went to the reservations and had people falsify affidavits claiming that they were paid. The Attorney General determined that those affidavits were false. Those people later on either said they didn't sign it and that those were not their signatures or that they signed them because someone asked them to. These three proposals are just attempts to reduce voter turnout in South Dakota and no one can point to one example of one vote being illegally cast in the state of South Dakota. We had a clean and fair election, some people may not be happy with the outcome, but it was a clean and fair election.
Representative Paul Valandra (D-Mission) testified, "I rise in opposition to HB 1244." He explained this law would make it
illegal for a candidate to hire an attorney from out of state to watch polls for himself. He said, "I don't think this will clear not only the minority rights division, but won't clear the constitutional provisions." He said, "I guess that kind of sums up this series of bills here. The reason we had all these out-of-state people here watching the elections is that there is a perception that South Dakota doesn't have fair elections and look at the type of legislation we're pushing through here today. I don't think there is any need for these bills. We had a good election. I think that there will be an even bigger turnout because of these bills. People are going to say (to Indians) they don't want you to vote, it really hurts them when you vote, maybe that's good."
Valandra said, "Maybe this is an exercise in democracy. My dad was in Viet Nam in 1967 and I volunteered when I got out of school in 1971. I support anyone and everyone voting in this country. But I think that when you haven't had to fight for freedom, or you don't know what a struggle it is, it's pretty easy to place limits on thse you don't think are worthy."
Representative Thomas Van Norman (D-Eagle Butte) testified on the bills saying, "This is a beautiful state with opportunity for everyone. But some of that opportunity has not been realized in the economic sense in the Indian reservations."
Van Normal called voting a part of the, "Bundle of sticks, and responsibilities, that we have as citizens. For those that are unaware of the 1924 citizenship Act, every Native American became a citizen of the United States because of that Act. We did have a very close election and there was a lot of controversy in some areas. Some messages about the need to vote for people who have never felt empowered to vote are getting out. I think that really ought to be encouraged. With these bills we are sending the wrong message, isn't America about freedom? Didn't the Native Americans who spoke Lakota and other native languages save countless American lives because their oral language wasn't written down anywhere? Side by side our veterans fought to save American freedom and protect the world. Where have we come, 60 years down the road, to be so divisive with this kind of thing because the Native American vote is coming out? Where have we come?"
home : mission statement : contact : site map : search : store : links
DLN coalition : DLN issues : DLN nation : related issues Any reprints are under the Fair Use doctrine of international copyright law : See http://www.dlncoalition.org/fair_use.htm.
|
