Native American Voters in North Dakota Urge Eighth Circuit to Reinstate Voting Rights and Fair Maps

Date
Body

St. Paul, MN — The Spirit Lake Tribe, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, and several individual voters today filed an en banc petition urging the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to reconsider a recent decision that stripped voters of their right to enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The panel’s ruling, if allowed to stand, would silence Native voters in North Dakota and disenfranchise millions across seven Midwestern states.

The unprecedented decision held that private citizens may no longer bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the VRA — a key provision used for decades to combat racially discriminatory voting laws — claiming the law does not create individual rights. The ruling is at odds with Supreme Court precedent and undermines hard-fought victories by Native communities.

“The fair map we secured led to a historic first – a Spirit Lake Nation member elected to the North Dakota legislature. This decision threatens that progress and weakens our voice in state government,” said Spirit Lake Nation Chairperson Lonna Jackson-Street.

“Turtle Mountain fought hard for a fair and legal map. When the state draws unlawful districts, Courts must step in to protect voters — not pave the way for injustice. We will continue to fight for fair representation,” said Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians Chairman Jamie Azure.

"We went to court because the map the state passed made it harder for Native voters like me to have a real voice. The court agreed and gave us a fair chance to elect candidates. Now, the Eighth Circuit wants to take away my right to question maps that silence votes, not because we were wrong, but because they say the Voting Rights Act does not create rights. That’s not justice and we’re going to keep fighting for that,” said plaintiff and North Dakota Native Vote Board Member Wes Davis (Turtle Mountain Chippewa).

“Throughout the redistricting process, we asked to be fairly represented. When the state adopted an unfair and illegal map, we challenged it — and we won. But now, the Eighth Circuit has erased that victory on a legal technicality that goes against decades of settled law. I will continue to stand with my community and demand fair representation in our legislature,” said plaintiff Collette Brown, North Dakota Representative for District 9.

“I joined this case because I saw firsthand how the state’s map silenced Native voters in our community. It split us up in ways that made it nearly impossible to elect people who understand our lives and will stand up for our interests. The lower court agreed and fixed that. Now the Eighth Circuit has reversed that progress. The court says that we never had the right to challenge it in the first place and that no North Dakota voter has that right anymore. That’s not just disappointing — it’s dangerous. Native voices matter, and we’re not done fighting to make sure they’re heard,” said plaintiff Zachery S. King (Turtle Mountain Chippewa).

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Native American Rights Fund (NARF), Robins Kaplan, LLP, and the Law Office of Bryan L. Sells, LLC — on behalf of Native American voters on the Turtle Mountain Reservation and Spirit Lake Reservation in North Dakota — filed the en banc petition arguing Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act/Klan Act of 1871 is and must remain a means to enforce the voting guarantees of Section 2 in every state of the nation. The current disputed map dilutes the voting power of North Dakota’s Native American voters.

“Two weeks ago, two Eighth Circuit judges ruled that the Voting Rights Act does not create voting rights enforceable by voters in court. The full Eighth Circuit should overturn that radical and unlawful ruling, which flouts Supreme Court precedent and congressional intent. Voters in the seven states of the Eighth Circuit — including Native American voters in North Dakota — should not be afforded fewer voting rights than those in the rest of the country,” said Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at CLC. “Campaign Legal Center and our partners have been in this fight for over three years, and we will see to it that Native American voters from the Turtle Mountain Band and Spirit Lake Tribe are able to make their voices heard and achieve fair representation without deliberate barriers.”

“This decision is a devastating blow to Native voters and to the Voting Rights Act itself. For decades, private citizens — especially in communities like Turtle Mountain and Spirit Lake — have relied on Section 2 to challenge racially discriminatory voting laws. The Eighth Circuit has now become the only federal appellate court to block those claims from being heard. It’s a dangerous precedent that denies voters across seven states the right to defend their most fundamental freedoms. We’re not backing down. NARF will continue to fight to ensure that Native people can have a voice in the political process,” said NARF Staff Attorney Lenny Powell.

If this decision stands, only the U.S. Department of Justice is authorized by the VRA to file lawsuits in the Eighth Circuit, which effectively closes off voters’ ability to challenge unfair maps as the department diminishes its Civil Rights Division. Native American voters in North Dakota have been fighting for a fair map since 2021. If this decision is left in place, their right to fair representation could vanish overnight.

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events. 

Issues
Redistricting

Does the Rule of Law Still Matter in a Second Trump Administration?

Submitted by ekrug on

Since Inauguration Day, President Trump’s second term has been characterized by overreaching executive orders, troubling attacks on our electoral system, clear conflicts of interest, and a blatant disrespect for the rule of law, the Constitution and our system of checks and balances.  

These actions paint an alarming picture of a president attempting to consolidate power at all costs.

Demanding Transparency from DOGE (In re U.S. DOGE Service U.S. Supreme Court brief)

At a Glance

To avoid discovery, the government argues DOGE is not an agency subject to FOIA. On behalf of government transparency scholars, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) submitted a Supreme Court brief arguing courts should look at what DOGE is actually doing to determine whether FOIA applies, instead of relying on the government’s own representations.   

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Ethics
About This Case/Action

Citizens for Responsibility in Ethics (CREW) filed a lawsuit demanding that DOGE answer its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered DOGE to respond to discovery to help determine whether DOGE is an agency covered by FOIA. 

DOGE has now appealed those orders to the U.S. Supreme Court. DOGE is arguing courts may only rely on executive orders that establish part of the Executive Office of the President to determine whether DOGE — or any other government entity established by the executive branch — is subject to FOIA.

CLC has joined the case with an amicus (or friend-of-the-court) brief representing government transparency professors whose research, teaching and writing focus on information and transparency law.  

CLC’s brief argues that the history of FOIA does not require courts to simply accept the government’s assessment of what is or is not an agency for purposes of FOIA, and how adopting such a rule would permit the government to evade the public’s right to transparency.  

What’s At Stake?

The government cannot decide for itself if it’s subject to FOIA or not. A legal test like this would undermine the purpose of FOIA and other transparency laws.  

This transparency law has historically been applied on the basis of a government entity’s activities, not just on what the government says.  

Accepting the government’s interpretation would allow and incentivize presidents to create more entities similar to DOGE that can operate within a black box and avoid transparency laws.

 

 

CLC's Bruce Spiva on Upholding FOIA and Holding DOGE Accountable to Transparency

Date
Body

Bruce V. Spiva, senior vice president of Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement: 

"By refusing to answer basic questions about the nature of their organization, the U.S. DOGE Service (DOGE) is diminishing trust across our government.

"The Freedom of Information Act allows the American people full visibility into how the government operates. The government’s argument — that it may essentially choose which aspects of the federal government are subject to transparency laws — would erode the transparency at the heart of a healthy democracy. It would incentivize presidents to create more entities like DOGE that can operate in a black box and avoid transparency laws.

"To preserve public trust, the U.S. Supreme Court must uphold the D.C. District Court’s ruling and compel DOGE to answer questions from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) about their government activities."

Issues
Ethics

Challenging Florida’s Restrictive Ballot Initiative Law (FloridaRighttoCleanWater. org v. Byrd)

At a Glance

Florida enacted a law that places severe restrictions on groups advocating in support of ballot initiatives and prohibits specific groups from circulating petitions to get those initiatives on the ballot. Campaign Legal Center is representing the sponsor of one ballot initiative effort and an affected individual to challenge this law. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

FloridaRighttoCleanWater.org, which is the sponsor of an ongoing ballot initiative effort in Florida, and an affected individual are challenging a new Florida law, HB 1205, which creates enormous and unconstitutional barriers to successfully getting a state constitutional amendment placed on the ballot.

Florida’s state constitution gives the people of the state the right to place, upon collecting the required number of signatures, constitutional amendments on the ballot for voters’ consideration. Dozens of amendments have been adopted through this direct democracy mechanism.

But HB 1205 seeks to undermine this process by banning entire groups of people from participating in the petition advocacy process, including legal U.S. residents who aren’t citizens, people with felony convictions who have not had their right to vote restored, and out-of-state residents. The law also imposes fines and criminal penalties on sponsors and petition circulators who fail to meet the law’s exacting requirements.

HB 1205 also makes it a felony for petition circulators to violate several restrictions on petition circulator eligibility and petition handling. But those provisions are so vaguely worded that it is unclear what conduct is and is not prohibited by the law.

CLC, on behalf of its clients, intervened in a lawsuit about HB 1205 in a federal district court in Florida to challenge these and other provisions. 

What’s at stake?

The Supreme Court has said — in Meyer v. Grant — that engaging in petition circulation is “core political speech” protected by the First Amendment. The Court also recognized that laws that impose burdens on petition circulation, including restrictions on who is permitted to collect signatures, restrict speech.

HB 1205 is exactly the kind of law the court warned about in Meyer. It places severe burdens on the people’s right to advocate for changes they support and to associate with others who share their beliefs.

HB 1205 also excludes and demeans certain groups of people, including legal permanent residents, by banning them from engaging in this kind of speech entirely.

By enacting HB 1205, the state Legislature is attempting to limit the power that the state constitution gives to voters through the petition process. This bill is an attack on Floridians’ First Amendment, equal protection and due process rights. 

CLC's Trevor Potter Urges Congress to Reject Problematic Provisions in Budget Reconciliation

Date
Body

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives plans to vote on a budget reconciliation package containing provisions that could seriously undermine our democracy. Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission, released the following statement: 

“The House is trying to use budget reconciliation as a Trojan horse to enact President Trump’s agenda across our government while avoiding the Senate filibuster rules — in doing so, they are poised to severely undermine our democracy. 

“In one provision, Congress aims to ban the enforcement of state or local laws regulating artificial intelligence (AI) — even those designed to stop election manipulation. More than 20 states have already created such laws after seeing that bad actors can use AI to create fake content that could mislead voters or discourage electoral participation. Congress should be following the example set by these states. We need federal laws that address the challenges AI can create for our democracy, rather than setting voters up to face a deluge of false information and denying their right to make informed decisions at the ballot box. 

“In another provision, Congress aims to shield the Trump administration, and any government actor, from accountability when they break the law. This outrageous change would undermine the rule of law and allow government officials, including the president, to escape the possibility of being held in contempt of court if they violate court orders. The provision would even apply to court orders and injunctions issued before this law takes effect. In essence, the provision could in a single stroke render thousands of prior orders across the country unenforceable via contempt proceedings. The rule of law in our country would be dangerously undermined if this provision becomes law. 

“CLC urges the House to remove these harmful provisions from its legislation. If they remain in place, we urge every lawmaker to vote NO and defeat this budget reconciliation package to protect our democracy.”

CLC, a nonpartisan nonprofit focused on advancing democracy through law, has identified two provisions that would harm voters and threaten the rule of law. 

The first — SEC. 43201(c) — is a 10-year ban on the enforcement of all state and local laws that regulate artificial intelligence (AI), which would include rules for AI’s use in political campaigns and elections. The second — SEC. 70302 — would severely restrict federal courts’ authority to hold government officials in contempt if they violate judicial orders. The bill would require those suing the government to pay a bond before the court can use its contempt power to enforce injunctions or restraining orders against illegal actions.

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events. 

Issues
Campaign Finance
Voting and Elections
Subscribe to