South Dakota, Indians and Voting.

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, a heavily Democratic group, are getting only six days for early voting in the presidential primary election, while the rest of the state gets 46.

The man they are suing is Jason Gant, who is not only the secretary of state, which means he oversees elections in South Dakota, but also the treasurer of a Republican Party political action committee.

But this really goes much deeper than ugly partisan politics. Much deeper. And it's much uglier.

Bits and pieces below, the full article here.

Native Americans have never had an easy time getting to vote in South Dakota. In 1977, the state attorney general dismissed the Voting Rights Act as an “absurdity” and advised state officials to ignore the federal law. The state didn’t allow Native Americans into polling places until the 1940s, though federal law had given them the right to vote in 1924. In 2004, a judge stopped poll watchers from following Native Americans out of voting places and taking down their license-plate numbers.

Through the years, Native Americans in South Dakota have filed more than 20 lawsuits over their right to vote.

This month, members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe went to court. In the upcoming presidential balloting, tribal members will have only six days of early voting, when the rest of the state has 46 days to cast early ballots in the primary and general elections.

Filed in federal court this month, the lawsuit contends the disparity is discriminatory, and amounts to “a denial of the right to vote.” One civic group has branded the state’s practice “a back door poll tax.”
In the quest for full enfranchisement, South Dakota’s Native Americans have brought lawsuits that charged gerrymandering, demands for forms of identity that are not required, failure to provide sufficient polling places and intimidation.

In 2010, the state settled an American Civil Liberties Union suit by agreeing to restore the voting rights of Native Americans who were improperly removed from voter rolls.

For decades, South Dakota avoided U.S. Department of Justice “pre-clearance”—a type of oversight the Voting Rights Act applies to proposed election-law changes in places with a history of discrimination. A federal court found in 2005 that when South Dakota finally agreed to DOJ scrutiny, a backlog of more than 700 laws needed vetting.
Poverty is, in fact, a major reason why area residents prize early voting. “A lot of us on Pine Ridge don’t have vehicles,” explained plaintiff and tribal member Clarice Mesteth. “During elections, those who have them drive long distances to give other people rides to the polls. Each round-trip can be a couple of hours, so having all the early-voting days we should, in addition to the general-election day, is important to us.”

Why not take advantage of early voting at the courthouse in Hot Springs, in adjacent Fall River County, which is an option for Shannon County residents? “One problem is that the round trip to Hot Springs is 4½ hours from some points in Shannon County,” said Mesteth.

“Another problem is that if you live on the [Pine Ridge Indian] reservation, your license plates start with a ‘65.’ That makes us easily identifiable. The Fall River cops stop us for all kinds of things when we go there. They’ll say we were going one mile over the speed limit, or we’ve got snow on our license plates.” As a result, Mesteth said, tribal members rarely go to Hot Springs, and when they do, they car-pool to cut down on the number of traffic tickets they might receive—yet another set of hurdles on the way to the ballot box.

What about mail-in absentee ballots? “Given the hostility tribal members face when they leave the reservation, they don’t believe mail-in ballots will be counted,” said Sandven, the plaintiffs’ attorney. “Most—especially elders—feel more secure about casting votes in person.”

“Bottom line, ballot box access in South Dakota currently depends on personal wealth,”
said Lembrich, who believes the state needs to establish a permanent means for providing regular early voting in Shannon County.

“You have less opportunity to vote in South Dakota if you don’t have a car, or don’t have gas money, or live on an isolated Indian reservation,” Lembrich said. “That’s not right.”
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Party politics is party politics. Easy problem to solve. Go back to having a 'election day'. Other than absentee ballots that would be the one day anyone can vote.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Besides, they get 6 days of early voting, plus election day and absentee ballots, if they can't get their vote in with all that, too bad.

I see no need for early voting. Just a set up to encourage more fraud. I like the idea of having to show up at a polling place and PROVING who you are to be able to vote. Too much voter fraud.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
No, it's blatant discrimination against Indians, with political overtones. There's a history of it there. You didn't read the article, did you?

Unfortunately yes it is because it targets one race or segment of voters....
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
No, it's blatant discrimination against Indians, with political overtones. There's a history of it there. You didn't read the article, did you?

Ye,s I read it. Yes, I know exactly what it is. It happens all over the country to many 'special groups'. It is party politics as it has always been. The dark side of it. There is nothing new here.

There is nothing new about discrimination either, not in this case or any number of others. It is wrong where ever and to whom ever is offended. It will never stop as long as there is greed for power in mankind. The best we can do is try to minimize the damage when it is found.

It is no different when the Democrats in Michigan carved out voting districts to insure that 'minorities' would be able to elect 'one of their own'. I think 'gerrymandering' is the correct term? Been done along racial lines, political lines, even labor union lines, by both parties, for just about as long as we have had political parties.
 
Last edited:

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Well...it is like having their cake and eating it too....When they cross the border....they proudly claim their native status as a citizen of North America..refusing to claim the US or Canada as place of birth which they legally can do if they have their N/A ID card.....IF they are not US citizens as they claim....they they should not be able to vote...at ALL...further more when they claim their NA status they are exempt from state tax....
 
Last edited:

witness23

Veteran Expediter
It is no different when the Democrats in Michigan carved out voting districts to insure that 'minorities' would be able to elect 'one of their own'. I think 'gerrymandering' is the correct term?

What you just described above is Party Politics and you are correct, it is called gerrymandering. What Turtle posted is just plain old fashioned discrimination.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
NOBODY'S votes are counted honestly. The whole system is a sham. Why should their votes count when ours don't?
--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
NA cards in the US are different than those in Canada. The Native Americans and their status is quite different, as well. The Indians of the US fought hard for their citizenship (Indian Citizenship Act of 1924). Not only was (is) dual citizenship of the Tribe and the US allowed, it's a de facto requirement, as in order to have a right to the land you had to be a citizen of the tribe. So American Indians do, indeed, claim US citizenship, most of them do so proudly. It's the Indians north of the border who want to remain more autonomous.

It's still an icky situation, as Indian land is land held in trust by the federal government for the Indians, which most Indians don't much like. But the alternative is to either grant them total sovereignty, which would mean everything they do would have to go through the Department of State, same as any other country, or grant each tribe full statehood, which creates far more problems that it solves.
 

moose

Veteran Expediter
.....IF they are not US citizens as they claim....they they should not be able to vote...at ALL...further more when they claim their NA status they are exempt from state tax....

That right there, just about some it up.
it is not a discrimination if you are not a paying member of the republic.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
So only taxed, property owners should be allowed to vote? The right to vote depends on the size of your wallet? Really?

Why should Indians pay taxes on property which the federal government will not allow them to actually own outright? Even individually titled land on a reservation is still titled as a tenant-in-common, and the owner cannot sell it to another Indian without permission from both the tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (they cannot sell it to a non-Indian under any circumstances).

We stole all their land and the American Indian was on the verge of being victim of genocide, and then we sat aside public lands and essentially imprisoned them on it. The Indians were relocated and forced to subsist in a total area of only 200,000 square miles, in a continent of over six million square miles which they had once wholly occupied. And you want them to pay taxes on top of all that?
 

moose

Veteran Expediter
Why should Indians pay taxes on property which the federal government will not allow them to actually own outright?

Because they are building CASINO's all over there, without paying ANY federal nor States TAXES.
it's have noting to do with poverty or income taxes, plenty of American are not paying taxes, and still VOTE.
i never went to a Minnesota casino, but love the one in Missouri & LV, where at least i know a portion of my losses might ends up in the state general funds or better worst in WDC.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
So only taxed, property owners should be allowed to vote? The right to vote depends on the size of your wallet? Really?
Ya just can't make it up ....

We stole all their land and the American Indian was on the verge of being victim of genocide, and then we sat aside public lands and essentially imprisoned them on it. The Indians were relocated and forced to subsist in a total area of only 200,000 square miles, in a continent of over six million square miles which they had once wholly occupied. And you want them to pay taxes on top of all that?
Ahem ..... I'll not point out the obvious .... too much .... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Because they are building CASINO's all over there, without paying ANY federal nor States TAXES.
You think nearly 2.4 billion acres, 97.7 percent of all the land of the United States of America, doesn't adequately cover the casino revenue taxes?

I think it does. If anything, they've still got a little store credit coming. Maybe give 'em a coupon or something... for shoes, or a coat, or whatever they need.
 
Top