Redistricting Lawsuit NewsReturn to Redistricting Lawsuit page
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/display/inn_news/news02.txt
Lawmakers won't appeal voting-rights ruling
By Denise Ross, Journal staff writer
PIERRE -- In an 8-6 vote, the state Legislature's executive board decided
Monday not to appeal a federal-court ruling in a voting-rights case involving
counties that are home to the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Indian reservations.
The decision apparently counters legal advice the board received from Chief
Deputy Attorney General Larry Long in a two-hour closed session.
"I sided with our legal opinion," Rep. Gerald Lange, D-Madison, said, when
asked about his vote against complying with the court order. "When we call on
experts to give their opinion, I believe we ought to listen to them."
Earlier this month, a three-judge panel ruled that the secretary of state and
the Legislature erred in not sending in part of its 10-year redistricting plan
to the U.S. Justice Department for review. Based on a history of proven
discrimination, the 1965 Voting Rights Act names Shannon and Todd counties,
specifically, as requiring federal review when the state redraws
legislative-district boundaries after each decade's U.S. Census.
The practice is known as "pre-clearance," and it means the state must get
federal approval before it holds elections in any new districts affecting the
areas named in the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Monday's vote also means that the state will pay the legal fees for the
American Civil Liberties Union, a national-advocacy organization that enlisted
four South Dakota plaintiffs, Alfred Bone Shirt of St. Francis, Belva Black
Lance of Rosebud, Bonnie High Bull of Wanblee and Germaine Moves Camp of
Wanblee.
The Rapid City Journal could not reach the plaintiffs for comment Monday.
The ACLU is negotiating its fees with the state attorney general's office, ACLU
attorney Brian Sells said. Committee members said Monday the amount was
expected to be under $100,000.
What Monday's decision means for the June 4 primary election in District 27 —
the district in question — remains unclear, according to Sells.
"In other cases, elections have been called off on short notice," he said. "I
can't tell you what the impact of an objection (by the Justice
Department) would mean in this case. I can say the overwhelming majority of
submissions are pre-cleared."
State Elections Supervisor Chris Nelson and Long have said they don't believe
the matter will affect the primary race between Democratic Senate candidates
Dick Hagen and Mary Amiotte because the District 27 boundaries drawn in 1991
are almost identical to those drawn by the Legislature last fall. The only
change is an uninhabited fire station at Martin.
Some of the board members who voted against complying with the court order said
they believe the state was right not to submit its voting plan for federal
approval. They wanted to fight for the legal principle involved.
"I thought we did everything right," Sen. Royal "Mac" McCracken, R-Rapid City,
said.
Rep. Gordon Pederson, R-Wall, said legislators from the districts in question
approved the new plan, and hearings held on the reservation drew almost no
voter comments.
"The ACLU is biting into the state a bit. Every time we let somebody flail at
us and leave a hole, it gets to the point where we have less governance and
less authority," Pederson said. "This is a watchdog
issue, and they're a watchdog group. They have a right to be heard. But when we
have the approval of everybody involved, and then they sue us, it bothers me."
Pederson has bristled under the long legal arm of the ACLU, and that sentiment
colored the closed-door discussions Monday.
About halfway through the discussions, a clearly audible shout from within the
meeting room was heard in the hallway: "If we would appeal and beat the ACLU's
butt, that would be great!"
Committee members afterward acknowledged the statement but declined to identify
who said it.
Rep. Mike Derby, R-Rapid City, made the motion to comply with the court order.
He said it was the quickest way to end the matter.
"We can file immediately and hope to get an answer back," Derby said. "I'm
confident we will get pre-clearance."
A lingering question remains over who decided not to seek the federal approval
outlined in the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Sen. Arnie Brown, R-Brookings, heads
the executive board and chaired the
redistricting committee that met throughout last summer. He said the executive
board decided the matter after consultation with the attorney general's office.
The matter never was voted on.
Brown said that because the Justice Department refused to consider the
redistricting committee's plans before either the committee or the entire
Legislature had voted on the matter, the group
decided not to send the plan in after the October special session.
"Apparently, pre-clearance doesn't mean pre-clearance," Brown said. "It was
screwy."
Sells said states sometimes do refuse to seek federal approval of their plans,
but he called Brown's quibbling over the definition of pre-clearance "not very
believable."
"They were told at the time they should send in the plan once it had been
enacted," Sells said. "I have some sympathy for the state's position. It would
be nice if you could get an answer while you can still do something about it.
But that's not the way it works."
In addition to its fees, Sells said the ACLU was negotiating "other matters"
with the attorney general's office, but he declined to elaborate.
At the beginning of Monday's meeting, Legislative Research Council Executive
Director Jim Fry said the body would have to pay for the
attorney general's office to contract with outside lawyers for the second half
of the ACLU lawsuit. That part of the suit, which those involved agree is the
more substantive voting-rights question, contends that District 26 should be
divided in House of Representatives elections to allow American Indians a
greater opportunity to elect a member of their own race to the Legislature.
Currently, two members are elected from all but one of South Dakota's House
districts. A single-member district exists on the Cheyenne River and Standing
Rock Indian reservations.
District 26 includes Haakon, Jackson, Jones, Lyman, Mellette, Tripp and part of
Bennett counties.
The ACLU has requested that matter go to trial in
November.
Wednesday, May 15, 2002
http://www.yankton.net/stories/051502/new_0515020014.shtml
State Lawmakers Decide Against Voting-Rights Appeal
PIERRE (AP) -- The state will not appeal a federal court ruling on voting
rights in a legislative district that includes the Rosebud and Pine Ridge
reservations, the Legislature's executive board decided Monday.
The 8-6 decision came after a two-hour closed session.
Rep. Mike Derby, R-Rapid City, made the motion to comply with the court order,
saying it was the quickest way to end the matter.
Earlier this month, a three-judge panel said the state made a mistake in not
sending part of its 10-year redistricting plan to the U.S. Justice Department
for review.
Based on a history of proven discrimination, the 1965 Voting Rights Act names
Shannon and Todd counties, specifically, as requiring federal review when the
state redraws legislative district boundaries after each decade's U.S. Census.
Although the Legislature left District 27 essentially unchanged when it redrew
boundaries last year, a minor shift in the area's Indian population was enough
of a change for federal review, the panel said.
The decision Monday apparently counters legal advice the board received from
Chief Deputy Attorney General Larry Long.
''I sided with our legal opinion,'' Rep. Gerald Lange, D-Madison, said, when
asked about his vote against complying with the court order. ''When we call on
experts to give their opinion, I believe we ought to listen to them.''
Other members of the executive board said the state was right not to submit its
voting plan for federal approval. They wanted to fight for the legal principle
involved.
''I thought we did everything right,'' Sen. Royal ''Mac'' McCracken, R-Rapid
City, said.
Rep. Gordon Pederson, R-Wall, said legislators from the districts in question
approved the new plan, and hearings held on the reservation drew almost no
voter comments.
''The ACLU is biting into the state a bit. Every time we let somebody flail at
us and leave a hole, it gets to the point where we have less governance and
less authority,'' Pederson said. ''This is a watchdog issue, and they're a
watchdog group. They have a right to be heard. But when we have the approval of
everybody involved, and then they sue us, it bothers me.''
The decision also means the state will pay legal fees for the American Civil
Liberties Union, a national-advocacy organization that worked on the case.
The ACLU is negotiating its fees with the state attorney general's office, ACLU
attorney Brian Sells said. Committee members said the amount was expected to be
under $100,000.
Sells said he was unsure what the decision would mean for the June 4 primary in
District 27.
''In other cases, elections have been called off on short notice,'' he said.
Chris Nelson, the state elections supervisor, and Long have both said they
don't believe the decision will affect the primary race since District 27
boundaries drawn in 1991 are almost identical to those drawn last fall.
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.
|
