Redistricting Lawsuit NewsReturn to Redistricting Lawsuit page
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/display/inn_news/news02.txt
Lawmakers to decide May 13 whether to appeal ACLU case
By Denise Ross, Journal Staff Writer
A state legislative board will decide Monday, May 13, whether to appeal a
ruling by a federal three-judge panel that orders federal approval of an
American Indian-reservation voting district.
Chief Deputy Attorney General Larry Long said the state has three options in
the case. It could follow the order and seek approval from the U.S. Justice
Department, it could appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court or it could do
both at the same time. The ruling gives the state 30 days to act.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued South Dakota under the 1965 Voting
Rights Act, claiming that the state must get federal approval for legislative
District 27, which includes Shannon and Todd counties, homes to the Pine Ridge
and Rosebud Indian reservations, as well as the southern half of Bennett
County.
The South Dakota Legislature redrew the state's legislative districts last fall
based on 2000 U.S. Census data.
On Thursday, a three-judge panel found 2-1 in favor of the ACLU, saying that
population changes within District 27 required federal review even though the
boundaries had not changed.
In the meantime, officials in the South Dakota secretary of state's office must
decide how to proceed with the June 4 primary election in District 27. In that
district, a single legislative primary election pits longtime state legislator
Dick Hagen against challenger Mary Amiotte for the Democratic nomination for
state Senate. The winner of that election will run against Republican Larry
Wright in the November election.
State elections supervisor Chris Nelson said he plans at this point to hold the
primary election using the previous district boundaries, which are essentially
the same as the new boundaries.
"The order was pretty clear in that we're prohibited from implementing the 2001
redistricting plan in District 27, which is identical, save a fire station
where nobody lives," Nelson said.
The fire station is in the Bennett County town of Martin and is on land that
the city annexed after 1991.
Long said he will read the 11-page decision thoroughly for any indication that
the June 4 primary would be affected.
"We are looking at this closely. So far, we have not found anything to indicate
we cannot proceed with a primary under the '91 plan in District 27," Long said.
The judges took care to point out that South Dakota's other 34 legislative
districts are not affected by Thursday's ruling, Long said.
"Clearly, we can proceed everywhere else," he said.
On Monday, the Legislature's executive board will meet and decide what to do
next, Long said. The 15-member executive board is elected by the Legislature's
105 members and handles legislative business outside of the body's annual
two-month long full session.
The executive board will consult with the attorney general's office, and
Secretary of State Joyce Hazeltine and her staff will be consulted, Long said.
It was the executive board that decided against sending the state's
redistricting plan to the U.S. Justice Department after the full Legislature
approved the plan during an October special session, those involved in the case
say. However, the board never voted on the matter. Instead, it was decided
through informal discussions, according to Rep. Gordon Pederson,
R-Wall, a member of both the executive board and the redistricting committee
that redrew legislative-district boundaries statewide.
"Everybody was in agreement. Being's they approved the last one (in 1991), we
could see no reason for sending it in the next time," Pederson said. "As a
group, we didn't think it was right."
The redistricting committee had sought Justice Department approval of the plan
last summer, before either it or the full Legislature had voted on any part of
the statewide redistricting plan. The Justice Department refused to review the
matter before any formal votes by the Legislature had been taken.
The Nov. 28 executive-board minutes include this mention of the decision:
"(Legislative Research Council Executive Director Jim) Fry briefly discussed
the reluctance to submit the state's redistricting plan to the U.S. Department
of Justice. ... He said that the Legislature passed the redistricting plan, and
the Governor signed the bill. He said that it is LRC staff's opinion that if
the American Civil Liberties Union or the Department of Justice has any issues
with the plan, those entities can address them."
Meanwhile, Pederson said committee members believed they satisfied the minority
voting-rights requirements laid out in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, in part
because they held public hearings on both the Pine Ridge and Rosebud
reservations.
"I just couldn't see any reason to cow-tow to that gal when all the Indians
were happy," Pederson said, referring to ACLU of the Dakotas executive director
Jennifer Ring. "Down on the reservation, those people got exactly what they
wanted. I'm a Norwegian, and I didn't get no 65 percent packed into my
district."
Ring testified last summer before the redistricting committee and offered
suggested legislative boundaries for the state's reservation areas based on
work done by the ACLU's national voting-rights experts.
A second part of the ACLU lawsuit claims that South Dakota's new legislative
districts dilute Indian voting rights. That question remains before a federal
judge.
Friday, May 3, 2002
http://www.yankton.net/stories/050302/new_0503020010.shtml
Judges: S.D. Should Seek Federal OK For Legislative District
By CHET BROKAW
Associated Press Writer
PIERRE -- South Dakota must seek federal approval of a legislative district
that includes the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Sioux Indian reservations, a panel of
federal judges ruled Thursday.
When the Legislature redrew the boundaries of South Dakota's 35 legislative
district last year, it left District 27 essentially unchanged.
But two members of a three-judge panel said a minor shift in the area's Indian
population was enough of a change to require the state to seek federal review
of the district to determine whether American Indian voting rights had been
harmed.
Thursday's ruling requires the state to seek that federal review within 30
days.
The third judge said he believes no federal approval is needed for District 27
because the unchanged district does not change Indian voting rights.
Chief Deputy Attorney General Larry Long said the state has made no final
decision on whether to appeal. He said he believes the state probably will
submit the District 27 plan for federal approval, but will also check whether
it can pursue a court appeal at the same time.
Long said state officials were not sure what effect Thursday's ruling would
have on the conduct of this year's June primary and November general election.
''It looks like we might simply be able to move forward with the election,'' he
said.
Any appeal in such cases goes directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, said Bryan
Sells of Atlanta, the American Civil Liberties lawyer who filed the lawsuit
against the state.
District 27 includes Todd County, which is the Rosebud Reservation and Shannon
County, which is a big part of the Pine Ridge Reservation. It also includes a
connecting strip across southern Bennett County, which is between the two
reservations.
Shannon and Todd counties are the only two South Dakota counties covered by the
1965 Voting Rights Act.
That law says any changes dealing with qualifications, standards, practices or
procedures for voting in covered areas must be submitted for pre-clearance to
the U.S. attorney general or to a federal judicial panel in Washington.
After the Legislature approved the redistricting, the American Civil Liberties
Union sued on behalf of some area residents, alleging the new plan dilutes
Indian voting rights and never was pre-cleared by the federal government.
The Legislature should have changed district boundaries in the area to make two
districts, instead of just one, where Indians would have a good chance to elect
their own state lawmakers, according to the lawsuit. That contention will be
handled later by a federal judge.
The legislative committee that drew the redistricting plan sought pre-clearance
when it first proposed to keep District 27 unchanged, but the U.S. Justice
Department would not look at the plan until the full Legislature had approved
it.
The state later argued that no federal pre-clearance was needed because the
unchanged District 27 did not change Indian voting rights.
Thursday's ruling noted that since the district was created in 1991, the
demographics of the area have changed. Indians made up 82 percent of the
voting-age population in the 1990 census, but that had grown to 86 percent by
2000. The district now exceeds the average population of a legislative
district, where it previously was below the average.
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.
|
