The law was enacted in 2017. NARF did not help the voters obtain physical addresses, instead they chose to take it to court. They lost, for now, so it's on them.
Supreme court upholds voter ID law, disenfranchising native Americans in ND
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
The law was enacted in 2017. NARF did not help the voters obtain physical addresses, instead they chose to take it to court. They lost, for now, so it's on them.
Mexico requires a voter ID if you wish to cast your vote. Why again, should the US not require a valid, tamper proof ID to prove you are a US citizen to vote? Foreigners are not allowed to vote in US elections! That is outright fraud and punishable with jail time! A number of illegals have already been charged and sentenced to jail time! I dare any foreigner who thinks it is okay to vote in another country's election and see what they do to your ass! Probably, beat your ass silly before locking your ass in jail!
Please note that there two places in the U.S. that use different address formats. The first is Puerto Rico that has standard, urban, and rural address formats. The second are Native Americans on reservations (tribal areas) that use a different address format.
The part these articles are leaving out is that all tribal areas in the U.S. were required to change their address formats to align with U.S. address formats by 2016. Many failed to do so. This mandate was put in place by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs so all the address would be aligned with the proper U.S. address format before 2018 when the U.S. Census does address listing in preparation for the 2020 Decennial Census. They should not be surprised that the voting identification mandates follow other federal requirements for address.
That's fine and dandy, except they were not forewarned in 2016 that they'd pull this crap now. There was no small print saying they'd be disenfranchised for not sticking to formatting.
Conveniently, it just so happens to be in a swing Senate seat when the GOP is in danger of losing it along with the house
But hey, if you feel the state government should take away birthrights mandated in the Constitution, don't cry foul when the state comes to get your guns.
Last edited:
Actually... as noted by the courts... the state is enforcing laws enacted by the Federal government put in place years in advance. No different than the voting situation in Georgia.
Update - Note that all the Federal laws and regulations were put in place under the Obama administration in these particular cases.
Last edited:
I specially liked reading the proof and sources you've presented. And no, the fed mandating requirements for Census purposes doesn't count towards voting purposes.
The address requirements for U.S. Tribal Lands count towards ALL federal requirements.
bullshit
https://rewire.news/ablc/2018/10/11/supreme-court-native-americans-november/
No other state or federal voting statute requires a “current residential street address” in order to be able to vote, Hovland noted. The North Dakota Constitution doesn’t require it, nor does the National Voter Registration Act. So why include a “current residential street address requirement,” if not to target the very people who would be disadvantaged by a such a requirement?
This is a question that didn’t bother the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which stayed Hovland’s injunction, thus permitting North Dakota to enforce the law. (If you don’t know what it means when a court “stays” an order, check out this handy explainer I wrote.) And by affirming that order, it seems that the Supreme Court is equally unbothered.
The Supreme Court’s order permits North Dakota to enforce its discriminatory law and eviscerates the practical protections that Hovland put in place in order to protect Native Americans’ right to vote. It also ensures, according to Judge Jane L. Kelly, who dissented from the Eighth Circuit majority opinion, that at least 2,305 Native Americans will not be able to vote in 2018.
And considering that Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp squeaked out a victory in 2012—backed by strong support among Native American voters—by 2,994 votes, those 2,305 votes likely doom her reelection chances.
But that was always the point. Within two months of Heitkamp’s victory, Roey Hadar reported for theNation earlier this year, “Republicans in North Dakota adopted a flurry of legislation that effectively revoked the right to vote for thousands of Native Americans and other Democratic voters.”
North Dakota used a system of small voting precincts and election boards, and poll workers in those precincts knew who was and was not an eligible voter. If the poll worker didn’t know the voter, they could ask the voter to produce ID with the person’s address and birthday on it. Acceptable forms of ID included driver’s licenses, cell phone bills, student ID cards, tribal ID cards, or even a utility bill dated 30 days before Election Day. If a voter could not produce the requested ID, the poll worker could simply vouch for the voter and let them vote, or the voter could sign an affidavit swearing under penalty of perjury that they are qualified to vote in the precinct.
After Heitkamp’s win, that all changed. North Dakota Republicans imposed new voter ID laws narrowing acceptable forms of ID to require the types that many Native American voters don’t have and can’t acquire. In addition to hurdles imposed by poverty or homelessness, there are also bureaucratic obstacles: In order to get ID, North Dakotans have to go to a “Drivers License Site,” but there are no such sites on any reservation in North Dakota. According to lawyers for plaintiffs at NARF, “Native Americans on the Lake Traverse Reservation, Fort Berthold Reservation, and Standing Rock Reservations have to travel an average of almost an hour just to access a Drivers License Site, some of which are only open for very limited hours.”
Maybe you should find some articles that outline the federal address change requirements for tribal lands rather than a story from a nonsense website called rewire news that promotes "Abortion, Contraception, Economic Justice, Politics, Race, Law and Policy, LGBTQ, Immigration" as their tabs across the top and is full off fact-free left-wing articles.
Yes, dismiss the Hovland quote, the judge that issued the initial stay, or the many sources littering the article.