Spirit Lake Tribe, et al. v. Jaeger

At a Glance

North Dakota’s voter ID law requires that voters’ identification include their current residential street address in order to cast a regular ballot. The use of a residential address requirement negatively impacts the ability of Native Americans living on reservations in North Dakota to exercise their right to vote.

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

Background

On April 24, 2017, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum signed House Bill 1369. The new law required voters to have a valid ID with their name, birth date, and current residential address. If a “valid” residential address is not listed on the ID, ballots cast will be considered ineligible unless the voter provides in-person proof of their residential address within a specified period.

On behalf of several Native American tribes, the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) filed Brakebill v. Jaeger, in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota to declare the new law discriminatory, and in violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

In February 2018, the district court invalidated the residential street address aspect of the law and ordered the Secretary of State to accept otherwise valid forms of identification that listed either a current residential street address or a current mailing address. Evidence showed that Native Americans disproportionately lack residential street addresses, particularly in the rural areas of the reservation where the County has not even provided addresses to many homes on reservations.  Most Native Americans used their P.O. boxes on their IDs, because that is the only way they can get mail.

In October 2018 the Supreme Court upheld the Eighth Circuit Court’s decision and declined to reinstate the statewide ban on enforcing the voter ID requirement.

The North Dakota Native American community has been working around the clock to provide the necessary IDs to those living on reservations, with no help from the state of North Dakota. Despite their efforts, North Dakota’s voter ID law could prevent many Native Americans from casting a ballot in the upcoming election on November 6.

On October 30, 2018, NARF and CLC filed Spirit Lake Tribe, et. al. v. Jaeger, a complaint to ensure that Native American voters’ right to vote is not burdened by the State’s failure to develop a functional addressing system on reservations.

Impact on Native American Voters

The residential street address requirement has the potential to disenfranchise many voters throughout North Dakota simply because they live on a reservation. The State and Counties have created a dysfunctional addressing system and are now seeking to ensure that the ID cards Native American voters present—even when it lists their residential street address—match the State’s faulty records.  The right to vote cannot be infringed in that manner.

It is not uncommon for residencies on reservations to not have an assigned street address. Many streets do not have marked signs and many houses are not labeled with numbers. Many members of the Native American community who do have street addresses assigned by 911 do not know their address and have not been notified of their address.

Members often understood their homes to have preexisting residential street addresses that no longer corresponds to 911 addresses because the county, unbeknownst to them, assigned them a different address in the 911 system. Not only were the members not informed, but some of the 911 addresses assigned to individuals do not correspond with the actual physical location of their fixed permanent dwelling.  Some homes were given multiple addresses, some homes were identified as occupying multiple cities, and some streets have multiple names.

The implementation of procedures for verifying the residential address requirement is not only challenging for voters, but has resulted in substantial confusion for election officials. Because the systems for assigning and verifying residential addresses are deeply flawed, and have generated significant confusion, qualified Native American voters face a substantial risk of being denied the right to vote. Indeed, Native voters have already been denied access to the ballot.In addition to challenges mentioned above, the state recently issued IDs with the “wrong” addresses. When attempting to vote, several members who obtained state issued IDs with addresses provided by the North Dakota Department of Transportation (DOT), were informed that the address they were provided did not match the DOT database or was invalid. Voters with an otherwise valid form of ID listing a residential address had no idea that they were disenfranchised.

This failure on the part of the State and County governments to provide a basic governmental service—naming public roads, posting signs on them, and posting address signs—is disturbing given the primary purpose is to ensure that emergency services can reach residents. Here this confusion and disarray jeopardizes the most fundamental right in our country—the right to vote. 

 

“Residential Address” Requirement Violates Voting Rights Protections

North Dakota’s voter ID law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by imposing undue burden on the right to vote. The State’s failure to provide a coherent, singular, and consistent residential addressing system to Native Americans places an undue burden on voters seeking to exercise their right to vote. Native American voters have been and will continue to be denied the right to vote due to the state’s deeply flawed system of assigning and verifying voters’ residential addresses.

Plaintiffs

SPIRIT LAKE TRIBE, on its own behalf and
on behalf of its members,
DION JACKSON,
KARA LONGIE,
KIM TWINN,
TERRY YELLOW FAT,
LESLIE PELTIER,
CLARK PELTIER,

Defendant

ALVIN JAEGER, in his official capacity as Secretary of State

Victory! Arizona Agrees to Adopt and Implement New Early-Ballot Signature Policy, Easing a Key Burden on Voting Rights

Date
Body

Yesterday, in response to letters sent by a coalition of Arizona groups, Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes announced that he has agreed to adopt and implement a new early-ballot signature policy. This new policy will permit all voters to cure problems with their signature, even those whose ballots are received on or just before Election Day. If a mismatched signature problem is not identified by officials or resolved prior to the close of polls on Election Day, those early ballots will be treated as conditional provisional ballots. All ballots must be received by 7 pm on Election Day to be afforded this opportunity. Recorder Fontes’s office will provide notice to all affected and voters will have up to five business days to confirm their signatures.

Now, in at least Maricopa, Coconino, and Pima counties, voters can correct signature mismatch errors by contacting their recorder in the days following the election. Voters who have cast early ballots should track the status of their early ballot online at this website.

The Campaign Legal Center, ACLU, ACLU of Arizona, and Scharff PLC worked to reach this agreement on behalf of a coalition of Arizona groups: League of United Latin American Citizens-Arizona, Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation, League of Women Voters-Arizona, and All Voting is Local-Arizona.

The lawyers assisting the coalition released the following statement:

“We are pleased that voters in Arizona’s three counties—including the two most populous counties in Arizona—will not have their absentee ballots rejected because officials are not ‘satisfied’ that the signature on the ballot matched the voter’s registration signature. These counties are leading the way to ensure that Arizona voters get due process by giving all voters a chance to confirm their signature. We hope that other counties follow suit and the Secretary of State will finally issue concrete guidance on this issue. We look forward to working with Recorder Fontes going forward and monitoring the details of the policy as it it’s finalized next week.”

Issues
Voting and Elections

Arizona Groups Urge Arizona to Stop Rejecting Arizona Absentee Ballots Because Of Their Penmanship

Date
Body

A recent ruling in Georgia should send a clear message to Arizona that its signature matching policies are unconstitutional.

WASHINGTON – Mail-in ballots in Arizona now account for nearly three-quarters of the total ballots cast. But not all those ballots will be counted. In 2016, 2,657 of those ballots were rejected because election officials were not “satisfied” that the signature on the ballot matched the voter’s registration signature. Many of those voters were not even told that their vote was rejected until after Election Day, if at all.

Counties must ensure that all mail-in voters are given notice and an opportunity to confirm their signature before their ballot is rejected.  But, in fact, all counties except Pima simply reject ballots with perceived mismatches that they receive on or near Election Day, in violation of voters’ constitutional rights to due process.

Yesterday, a federal court in Georgia held unconstitutional similar signature matching practices. The court ordered election officials to provide all absentee voters with due process before rejecting their ballot. The decision should send a clear message to Arizona that its policies fall short of adequately protecting Arizonan voters.

On October 22, CLC, ACLU, and ACLU of Arizona sent a letter on behalf of a coalition of Arizona groups: League of United Latin American Citizens-Arizona, Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation, League of Women Voters-Arizona, and All Voting is Local-Arizona. Today, the groups sent a follow-up letter advising Arizona officials of yesterday’s Georgia ruling and demanding a solution.

“Given the popularity of voting by mail in Arizona, processing mail-in ballots properly is critical,” said Danielle Lang, senior legal counsel at CLC. “Votes must not be rejected without due process. Secretary Reagan should issue immediate guidance to county recorders statewide requiring that all voters with ballots flagged for ‘mismatched’ signatures receive notice and an opportunity to confirm their signature before having their ballots rejected.”

“Arizona voters deserve to know with certainty their votes will be counted when they submit their mail-in ballot,” said Darrell Hill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Arizona. “The Secretary of State and county recorders should use the processes already in place, as the Pima County Recorder currently does, to notify voters if their ballot envelope signature does not appear to match the signature on file, and give these voters an opportunity to confirm their signature instead of rejecting their ballot.”

"Arizona should protect voters, not undermine them. Instead, signature-matching is used as another way to make voting more difficult. County recorders have the authority to let voters resolve signature issues, and are simply refusing to do so," said Julie Ebenstein, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Voting Right Project.

"The Constitution requires Arizona's elections officials to afford the same opportunities to all eligible voters. Doing so here would not entail significant administrative burdens. Rather, election officials would simply need to refine their existing practices, which already permit certain voters to cure issues with their early ballot signatures,” said Spencer Scharff, a Phoenix lawyer advising the coalition.

Issues
Voting and Elections

CLC Flags NRA Coordination with Missouri Senate Campaign

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Josh Hawley violated federal campaign finance law by illegally coordinating nearly $1 million in spending.

The evidence indicates that the NRA routed nearly $1 million in spending supporting Hawley’s campaign through an apparent shell corporation established by Hawley’s top campaign consultant. Additionally, in at least one instance, an official at the same media company placed the NRA’s pro-Hawley ads and the Hawley campaign’s own ads on the same stations and on the same day.

“The evidence indicates that the NRA routed nearly $1 million through shell corporations to unlawfully coordinate with the Hawley campaign,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal reform program at CLC. “Groups like the NRA can only make unlimited expenditures if they are independent of the candidates they support, and it falls to the FEC to enforce the laws that preserve that independence and prevent corruption.”

“The NRA is at it again,” said David Pucino, a staff attorney at Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “As these apparent campaign finance violations accumulate, one has to wonder why the NRA continues to use these tactics. Maybe it’s because they know that a majority of Americans oppose their radical agenda. Maybe they just don’t care about the rule of law. Whatever the case may be, it’s clear that the FEC must investigate.”

Campaign finance law prohibits coordination between candidates and outside groups like the NRA. In order to preserve their independence, FEC rules limit how a vendor may work for both a candidate and an outside group supporting that candidate, to prevent the vendor from being used as a conduit for coordination.

Earlier this year, Politico Magazine uncovered that the directors at OnMessage – a consulting firm led by Hawley’s campaign consultant, Brad Todd – created a shell corporation called Starboard, located at the same address, and which appears indistinguishable from its parent company. Candidates would then hire OnMessage, and the NRA would contract with Starboard to create ads supporting those candidates. Hawley’s top consultant, Todd, is on the board of both OnMessage and Starboard.

In addition to the NRA and Hawley campaign using OnMessage/Starboard to create advertisements, the NRA and Hawley also appear to be using a shared set of vendors to place those advertisements, providing further evidence of coordination. According to FEC and FCC records, the NRA’s pro-Hawley communications were distributed and placed by employees of the firm “National Media” under a trade name, while the Hawley campaign placed its own ads using National Media or an affiliate. In at least one instance, the same National Media official placed advertisements on behalf of both the NRA and Josh Hawley for Senate on the same stations and on the same day.

Issues
Campaign Finance
Subscribe to