|
 Latest News!
 South Dakota Ordered to Comply with Voting Rights Act
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling Protects Rights of Native American Voters, Says ACLU (August 22, 2006)
Election officials: Everyone was treated equally, (24 April 2004)
Alfred Bone Shirt letter to Denise Ross, Rapid City Journal reporter, Rapid City Journal, Denise Ross (24 April 2004)
ACLU finishes case in voting rights trial, Rapid City Journal, Denise Ross (23 April 2004)
Peaceful Spiritual Gathering and Rally, Pierre, SD, 22 April 2004
A peaceful Spiritual Gathering and Rally was held on 22 April 2004 at the State Capital in Pierre SD to focus attention on racisim and dual standards of justice in the South Dakota goverment, courts, judicial offices, jails, prisons, law enforcement agencies and Indian Child Welfare agencies.
Witnesses testify on racism at ACLU trial, Rapid City Journal, Denise Ross (15 April 2004)
Indian Voting Rights Trial Begins, Rapid City Journal, Denise Ross (13 April 2004)
Following ACLU Lawsuit on Behalf of Native Americans, SD Officials Agree to Fair School Board Elections ACLU press release (18 March 2003)
ACLU is Doing More Than Passing Through (2003 March 6)
OST Primary: Deja Vu all over again Ruth Steinberger for Lakota Journal (8 - 15 November 2002)
ACLU, Sioux Settle Election Lawsuit Washington Post (9 November 2002)
S.D. settles ACLU lawsuit Rapid City Journal (8 November 2002)
South Dakota settles voting rights lawsuit CNN news (8 November 2002)
From the NY ACLU: South Dakota Settles Largest-Ever Voting Rights Lawsuit Brought by ACLU on Behalf of Native Americans (8 November 2002)
Do what's needed for fair elections -- Hazeltine has good plan; ACLU should back off Argus Leader editorial (4 Nov 2002)
NOTE: In the above editorial, in which the Argus Leader called on the ACLU to "back off", the Argus Leader endorsed Bill Janklow for the House of Representatives.
Ballot change request draws ACLU interest (31 Oct 2002)
ACLU letter regarding SD change in absentee ballot counting procedure 29 Oct 2002
More news on the Voting Rights lawsuit
ACLU Files Largest-Ever Voting Rights Lawsuit on Behalf of Native Americans
in South Dakota
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Richard Alleyne, (212) 549-2689
Kini Schoop, (212) 549-2594
Monday, August 5, 2002
RAPID CITY, SD-Saying that state officials have for nearly 30 years ignored
a federal law meant to protect minorities from voting discrimination, the
American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit on behalf of four
Native Americans against state and local officials for failing to obtain
Justice Department approval of more than 600 statutes and regulations that
affect voting and elections in the state.
"The sheer volume of election-related laws at issue in this case make this
the largest voting rights lawsuit ever filed," said Bryan Sells, a staff
attorney with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project and lead counsel in the case.
The sweeping lawsuit, Elaine Quick Bear Quiver et al. v. Joyce Hazeltine et
al., was filed on behalf of two Lakota elders and two tribal officials
residing in Todd and Shannon counties in an effort to enforce Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 5 requires certain states or parts of
states, counties and municipalities to get federal approval or preclearance
of their new voting laws or practices before they can be implemented. While
most of the state's laws are unobjectionable, the ACLU has identified at
least 12 that appear to be discriminatory in nature.
Todd and Shannon counties, located 120 miles west of the capital city of
Pierre, are covered by Section 5.
"We are a proud people and all we seek is an opportunity to have a voice,"
said Elaine Quick Bear Quiver, a Lakota tribal elder. "Many members of the
Great Sioux Nation do not vote because they have become so discouraged that
they feel their votes won't make a difference. We are hopeful that this
lawsuit will lead to state compliance and an improvement in the condition of
our people."
Late last Friday, the ACLU learned that South Dakota officials had hastily
submitted a one-page memo to the Justice Department in an attempt to stave
off criticism and the impending lawsuit. ACLU attorneys have dismissed the
last-ditch request for approval as strictly a public relations ploy since it
does not fully comply with Section 5 and does not address many of the
statutes listed in the ACLU lawsuit.
"The state's last-minute submission is so inadequate that we see it as
another attempt to avoid actual compliance with federal law," Sells said.
"This further emphasizes the need for intervention by the courts."
The ACLU became aware of South Dakota's noncompliance with Section 5 when
the state legislature failed to submit their 2001 legislative redistricting
plan to the Attorney General for preclearance. The ACLU filed a separate
lawsuit (Alfred Bone Shirt et al. v. Joyce Hazeltine et al.) seeking
compliance from the state. Earlier this year, a federal district court ruled
that South Dakota officials violated Section 5 by failing to obtain
preclearance before implementing the new plan.
According to the ACLU complaint, South Dakota's noncompliance with the
Voting Rights Act seems to have been a conscious decision made almost 30
years ago when in 1975 the Act was amended to specifically protect the
voting rights of Native Americans and other language minorities.
The complaint cites a 1977 memorandum issued by then-state Attorney General
William Janklow to the South Dakota Secretary of State acknowledging that
the Voting Rights Act required preclearance of all state election statutes
enacted after November 1, 1972, yet advising the Secretary not to comply
with the law. Janklow is now the term-limited governor of the state and
candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2002 elections.
"Section 5 was enacted so the federal government could ensure that states'
election laws did not discriminate against populations who have experienced
a history of discrimination," said Jennifer Ring, Executive Director of the
ACLU of the Dakotas. "But since 1975, South Dakota has adopted a renegade
position and openly flouted compliance with this important law."
Discrimination against Native Americans in many forms is simmering toward
crisis proportions in the state, Ring noted. Last June, representatives from
the Department of Justice's Civil Rights division toured several South
Dakota cities and rural areas to investigate the treatment of youth, a large
percentage of whom are Native American in the state's juvenile justice
system and listen to public testimony about allegations of racial profiling.
The ACLU has also been involved in efforts to remedy these problems.
The ACLU lawsuit seeks a court order prohibiting the state from implementing
any of the statutes unless and until the state has complied with Section 5.
Patrick Duffy of Rapid City is serving as ACLU cooperating attorney in this
case.
To read the complaint in this case go to: http://www.aclu.org/court/hazeltine.pdf
A fact sheet titled Despair and Discrimination in Indian Country is
available online at: http://www.aclu.org/news/2002/sd_factsheet.pdf
Redistricting lawsuit
A two part law suit has been filed by the ACLU against a redistricting plan that passed the South Dakota legislature in October 2001 but was not filed with the federal government for approval.
The first part of the suit--Bone Shirt, et al vs. Hazeltine, et al--sought either a temporary or permanent injunction against the implementation of the recently enacted redistricting plan for the State of South Dakota. Filed on behalf of named plaintiffs Alfred Bone Shirt, Belva Black Lance, Germaine Moves Camp and Bonny High Bull, the suit was filed by the Voting Rights Project of the ACLU, due to the failure by the state to file as required by federal law for prior approval by the Department of Justice.
The result of the redistricting would ensure a non-Indian majority in state government in the future and is an assault on minority voting rights.
The second part of the suit takes aim at the actual plan which fails to create an additional Indian majority voting district causing nearly 6,000 Indians to vote in a white majority district that has never elected any Indian legislators and is unlikely to do so, while placing an excessively large number of Indians in a neighboring voting district.
"Due to a documented history of racism affecting voting rights, South Dakota is one of 16 states that must file for approval prior to implementation of their redistricting plan for Shannon and Todd counties. A small number of states including South Dakota must file for approval for only a portion of the state, rather than filing for approval for the redistricting plan covering the entire state. The state is compelled to file for approval any time redistricting covers Shannon and Todd counties." (For more read Ruth Steinberger's ACLU files lawsuit against South Dakota for Indian Voting Rights.
The following is from the ACLU's booklet "Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Redistricting But Were Afraid to Ask".
Is it still permissible to draw majority-minority districts?
Yes. The Court has invalidated majority black and Hispanic districts in some states, but it has rejected challenges to such districts in others. States are not only permitted to draw majority-minority districts, but may be required to do so to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
According to the Court, a legislature "will....almost always be aware of racial demographics," but it may not allow race to predominate in the redistricting process. A state "is free to recognize communities that have a particular racial makeup, provided its action is directed toward some common thread of relevant interest." Redistricting may be performed "with consciousness of race." Indeed, it would be "irresponsible" for a state to disregard the racial fairness provisions of the Voting Rights Act. A state may therefore "create a majority-minority district without awaiting judicial findings" if it has a strong evidence for avoiding a Voting Rights Act Violation. Admittedly, it may be difficult to steer a median course between these competing principles articulated by the Court, but it is clear that the Court has not banned the use of majority-minority districts.
Alfred Bone Shirt, Belva Black Lance, Bonni High Bull, and Germaine Moves Camp, v. Joyce Hazeltine. Civil Action #01-3032. Complaint
(NOTE: This file is in Acrobat PDF format. To be able to view it you will need a Adobe Acrobat Reader. If you don't have it, you may download it for free here.) Be prepared for some loading time. Big file.
Alfred Bone Shirt, et al., v. Joyce Hazeltine. Civil Action #01-3032. Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Appended was Exhibit A Minutes of the Executive Board of the Legislative Research Council. Appended also was Exhibit B MInutes of the Legislative Redistricting Committee of the Legislative Research Council.
(NOTE: This file is in Acrobat PDF format. To be able to view it you will need a Adobe Acrobat Reader. If you don't have it, you may download it for free here.) Be prepared for some loading time. Big file.
Alfred Bone Shirt, Belva Black Lance, Bonni High Bull, and Germaine Moves Camp, v. Joyce Hazeltine. Civil Action #01-3032. Defendents' Brief in Opposition to Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
(NOTE: This file is in Acrobat PDF format. To be able to view it you will need a Adobe Acrobat Reader. If you don't have it, you may download it for free here.) Be prepared for some loading time. Big file.
Alfred Bone Shirt, et al., v. Joyce Hazeltine. Civil Action #01-3032. Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Brief inOpposition to Their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
(NOTE: This file is in Acrobat PDF format. To be able to view it you will need a Adobe Acrobat Reader. If you don't have it, you may download it for free here.) Be prepared for some loading time. Big file.
Alfred Bone Shirt, et al., v. Joyce Hazeltine. Civil Action #01-3032. Brief of the United States As Amicus Curiae"
(NOTE: This file is in Acrobat PDF format. To be able to view it you will need a Adobe Acrobat Reader. If you don't have it, you may download it for free here.) Be prepared for some loading time. Big file.
Alfred Bone Shirt, Belva Black Lance, Bonni High Bull, and Germaine Moves Camp, v. Joyce Hazeltine. Civil Action #01-3032. Opinion and Order
(NOTE: This file is in Acrobat PDF format. To be able to view it you will need a Adobe Acrobat Reader. If you don't have it, you may download it for free here.) Be prepared for some loading time. Big file.
Complaint on Media Coverage
The average American accepts carte blanche what they are fed by the media, presupposing that what they are receiving are unbiased facts. But as regards Dakota-Lakota-Nakota issues (and American Indian issues in general) media suppression of data, through the choice of what is presented, is a long-ongoing problem of prejudiced reporting. The result is the reader, not priviledged with the full news, is steered by the prejudiced data toward views favored by the media.
A case in point is Denise Ross' article Lawmakers to decide May 13 whether to appeal ACLU case. When compared with Ruth Steinberger's ACLU files lawsuit against South Dakota for Indian Voting Rights the bias is clear.
Alfred Bone Shirt's response to Denise Ross' article Lawmakers to decide May 13 whether to appeal ACLU case
Denise,
I have watched the way reporters such as
yourself have suppressed
the truth when it came to writing the truth about
the white supremacy
racial aggression that is alive and well here in the
five state area surrounding the "Great Sioux
Nation" and in this case
South Dakota. This same white supremacy racial
aggression directed at
Indian People has been in existence before the
signing of the Treaties
between Our Lakota Nation and your United States.
The end result is the
same and that is to screw a Race and Nation of
People of Color. How many
times have you or any of the Rapid City Journals
staff really put any
meaningful effort into covering the full story
concerning Indian people in
a White Supremacy aggressive state. As I am sure you
are aware that the
Court case is titled " Bone Shirt vs Hazeltine " and
that this particular
case is against the good ol' boy system here in
South Dakota. Short of out
right censorship, your article has left myself as
the other plaintiffs in
this lawsuit completely out! Personally, I think
your newspaper is
heading for a protest against it for its' Racist
Denials" in reporting the
truth. whether it was you under writing the issues
affecting Native
Americans or one of the other token "Indian issue"
reporters, The article
comes out with that "Good Ol' Boy white supremacy
Republikkkan Spin" The
saying about " You can not see the Forest because of
the Trees" is a
reality with your type of coverage.
Aho Hecetu
Yelo, I am
sincerely Alfred Bone shirt, P.O. Box 586, St.
Francis, South Dakota
A comment on Denise Ross' response (which follows):
Either way I
looked at there reporting over the years, it still comes out biased. They
either under report the Good in Native Issues or over report the
negative (death, criminal reports, violence etc. and God forbid if its a
Indian against a White person). Media suppression is a major issue
affecting Our People here in the Dakotas. We have learned first hand what
media suppression, and Censorship is by having a Catholic church run radio
station disguised as a Indian station operating here on the Rosebud Sioux
Indian reservation, South Dakota. This dialogue is coming out due to the way
this redistricting & voting rights issue is downplayed in white
media. This lawsuit may very well hold up the election process here in
South Dakota, then the Eyes of the World should focus in this direction as
to "why" this is happening. America will then see that Racism is behind the
states Governments actions in violating Native Voting
Rights.
Alfred Bone Shirt
>From: Denise Ross
>
>Dear Alfred,
>
>Thank you for your note. First, I have been looking for a telephone number
>at which to reach you. I could not find a listing for you through directory
>assistance. So, I'm glad to get your e-mail.
>
>Secondly, I believe you are sincere in your belief that I have suppressed
>the truth, but I don't see how reporting that a court ruled that the
>Legislature failed to comply with the Voting Rights Act promotes white
>supremacy racial aggression. I would argue just the opposite. I would argue
>that it brings to light a potential violation of Indian rights, which, I'm
>sure you would agree is far better than not bringing it to light. What would
>you say if we didn't report on the court ruling?
>
>As for covering the full story of Indian people, I'm sure you can recognize
>how that isn't possible in a single news story. Indeed, I would argue it's
>not even possible in a single book. My intent last week was to explain how
>the Legislature's decision to not send in their redistricting plan for
>federal approval might affect the pending election cycle, a narrow focus to
>be sure and not the focus you would probably prefer.
>
>I'm not trying to disagree with you. I'm just asking you to consider the
>practical, day-to-day realities of our small newspaper staff.
>
>I am going to Pierre on Monday to cover the meeting of the Legislative
>committee that will decide whether or not to appeal this case. If you are
>not planning to attend, could I get a telephone number where I could call
>you later in the afternoon? I received a copy of the opinion by mail on
>Monday and was able to find a number for Bonnie High Bull but not for any of
>the other plaintiffs. Perhaps you can help on that front.
>
>Please call me at your convenience today or Wednesday.
>
>Regards,
>Denise
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.
|
Photograph--Alfred Bone Shirt's father