Current Events > Supreme Court upholds ND law disenfranchising Native Americans

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/410650-supreme-court-allows-north-dakota-to-enforce-voter-id-laws

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to toss out an appeals court order that allows North Dakota to enforce its voter ID requirement during the 2018 elections.

The request to toss out the order came from a group of Native American residents who are challenging a new state law that requires voters to present identification that includes a current residential street address.

The challengers argued the new rule disenfranchises a disproportionate share of the population because many Native American voters live on reservations without standard addresses.

The District Court agreed and temporarily blocked the North Dakota secretary of state from enforcing the new requirements during the primary elections, but the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked that court order last month.

The challengers asked the Supreme Court in an urgent request submitted to Justice Neil Gorsuch to toss out the 8th Circuit stay, arguing it has left thousands of Native American voters unable to cast ballots, but the court denied the request without explanation.

The court's newest member, Brett Kavanaugh, did not take part in the decision.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, however, filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Elena Kagan joined.

Ginsburg said she would have granted the challengers request. She said last-minute court orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, can result in voter confusion and keep people from turning out to the polls.

The risk of voter confusion appears severe here because the injunction against requiring residential-address identification was in force during the primary election and because the Secretary of States website announced for months the ID requirements as they existed under that injunction, Ginsburg said.

Reasonable voters may well assume that the IDs allowing them to vote in the primary election would remain valid in the general election.

tl;dr: the law doesn't consider PO Box addresses as valid. Many of the state's Native Americans, living on reservations, only have PO Box addresses.
---

Can reservations not have an address? Is it literally impossible?

How do you defend this
---

What a stupid law.
---

Present ID, just like the Constitution says.
---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

How do you defend this

People on r/The_Donald are doing that just fine. Kinda crazy even if people are being sarcastic there are people that actually think like those users.
---

I don't really follow the indian reservations thing. Are they considered citizens on the state or is it an entirely separate thing?
---

So they asked to late and they denied it is how I am reading this, so if they would have asked like after the election it may have gotten overturned?
---

How Christian of them.
---

So weird!
---

Disgusting.
---

Antifar posted...

Reasonable voters may well assume that the IDs allowing them to vote in the primary election would remain valid in the general election.

one would assume, yeah
---

Esrac posted...

I don't really follow the indian reservations thing. Are they considered citizens on the state or is it an entirely separate thing?

I thought that the reservations were considered sovereign states, accountable only in a few ways to the US Federal Government.
---

So only 2 dissenting? A 6-2 ruling?
---

Perhaps they should conform with normal American behaviors
---

Esrac posted...

I don't really follow the indian reservations thing. Are they considered citizens on the state or is it an entirely separate thing?

They're considered US citizens with voting rights
---

Esrac posted...

I don't really follow the indian reservations thing. Are they considered citizens on the state or is it an entirely separate thing?

It's basically an autonomous state within a state. While on reserve land, it's their law and their rules. The police can't enter their territory. In Canada, they don't pay taxes for property or jobs worked on reserves (and only on reserves, meaning most still pay taxes because they work jobs outside of the relatively business free reserves). However, they are still Canadians, can still vote in Canadian elections, still are subject to Canadian law when on Canadian land, etc.

Dash_Harber posted...

Esrac posted...

I don't really follow the indian reservations thing. Are they considered citizens on the state or is it an entirely separate thing?

It's basically an autonomous state within a state. While on reserve land, it's their law and their rules. The police can't enter their territory. In Canada, they don't pay taxes for property or jobs worked on reserves (and only on reserves, meaning most still pay taxes because they work jobs outside of the relatively business free reserves). However, they are still Canadians, can still vote in Canadian elections, still are subject to Canadian law when on Canadian land, etc.

Yeah, that's how it works in the U.S. , so far as I know.
Or, well, how it's supposed to work. The federal government as well as state governments still love screwing over Native Americans.

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Esrac posted...

I don't really follow the indian reservations thing. Are they considered citizens on the state or is it an entirely separate thing?

It's basically an autonomous state within a state. While on reserve land, it's their law and their rules. The police can't enter their territory. In Canada, they don't pay taxes for property or jobs worked on reserves (and only on reserves, meaning most still pay taxes because they work jobs outside of the relatively business free reserves). However, they are still Canadians, can still vote in Canadian elections, still are subject to Canadian law when on Canadian land, etc.

Yeah, that's how it works in the U.S. , so far as I know.
Or, well, how it's supposed to work. The federal government as well as state governments still love screwing over Native Americans.

Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous here, as well. A significant group of citizens also have some incredibly racist views. They think that the First Nations people should, 'just get over it', and that what happened in the past doesn't matter. This conveniently ignores two important facts; firstly, the past was the foundation for most of the laws and customs we still follow, meaning institutionalize racism still carries on, and secondly, that the racism didn't ever stop.

It's sort of like this; I challenge you to a foot race. Then I break both your knees. I then say, "Okay, well that probably wasn't fair. From now on we will have a fair race. Ready, set, go!".

"Gorsuch is a great choice for Justice!"

"Kavanaugh is centrist and independent and NOT racist! A great judge!"

Fucking GOP leadership can suck my cock.
---

DundiesAward posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

How do you defend this

People on r/The_Donald are doing that just fine. Kinda crazy even if people are being sarcastic there are people that actually think like those users.

People on r/The_Donald are nothing but a bunch of dumb, racist losers.

@Blue_Dream87 posted...

Esrac posted...

I don't really follow the indian reservations thing. Are they considered citizens on the state or is it an entirely separate thing?

They're considered US citizens with voting rights

Are they considered state citizens as well though? I thought the reservations were independent from the states. That all said, I can't imagine the lawmakers know much more than I do, even if they should know more, which is what the problem is.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

It's sort of like this; I challenge you to a foot race. Then I break both your knees. I then say, "Okay, well that probably wasn't fair. From now on we will have a fair race. Ready, set, go!".

It's more like your great grandfather got his knees broken by someone else's great grandfather whose desecdent now lives in France.

And as such you demand I give you money and special treatment.
---

ZMythos posted...

"Gorsuch is a great choice for Justice!"

"Kavanaugh is centrist and independent and NOT racist! A great judge!"

Fucking GOP leadership can suck my cock.

What about the other two liberal justices though? The article didn't say how they ruled. It only mentions Ginsberg and Kagan. Nothing about Sotomayor or Breyer
---

ZMythos posted...

"Kavanaugh is centrist and independent and NOT racist! A great judge!"

The court's newest member, Brett Kavanaugh, did not take part in the decision.

Read the whole article before you bitch please.

Dash_Harber posted...

hey think that the First Nations people should, 'just get over it', and that what happened in the past doesn't matter.

How many of the "First Nations" people are actually interested in living separately from the US, or following traditional views of the tribe or whatever? And how many of them want the benefits of US Citizenship "with special bonuses just for us" like being the only ones in a state allowed to have casinos?
---

TheRealDill2000 posted...

Perhaps they should conform with normal American behaviors

Not surprised you dont understand the issue.
---

Crazyman93 posted...

Read the whole article before you bitch please.

I mean that's only 50% of the people I mentioned.

And if Trump's consistent on the types of people he appoints to positions (and I'd say that he is), then Kav is gonna be as big a pile of shit as Gorsuch
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

TheRealDill2000 posted...

Perhaps they should conform with normal American behaviors

Not surprised you dont understand the issue.

It's not that he doesn't understand the issue, it's that he wants to shit post.

ZMythos posted...

And if Trump's consistent on the types of people he appoints to positions (and I'd say that he is), then Kav is gonna be as big a pile of shit as Gorsuch

Oh, you mean as opposed to Ginsburg who was quoted as saying the US Constitution doesn't matter?
---

So I did a little digging, there was no actual ruling, the Court chose not to take up the case. Only Ginsberg and Kagan spoke out.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/court-stays-out-of-north-dakota-voting-dispute/
---

typical racist trump admin behavior
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

It's sort of like this; I challenge you to a foot race. Then I break both your knees. I then say, "Okay, well that probably wasn't fair. From now on we will have a fair race. Ready, set, go!".

It's more like your great grandfather got his knees broken by someone else's great grandfather whose desecdent now lives in France.

And as such you demand I give you money and special treatment.

If the grandfathers status limited his options and resources that included education, jobs, and services, wouldn't that also have an effect on his children's potential for success as well? Also weren't some groups of native Americans going through some shit in the 70's?
---

Unbreakable posted...

So I did a little digging, there was no actual ruling, the Court chose not to take up the case. Only Ginsberg and Kagan spoke out.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/court-stays-out-of-north-dakota-voting-dispute/

In otherwords, the article in OP could be construed as biased. However, the Court refusing to hear a case is roughly the same as upholding the previous ruling. Though any opinions aren't nearly as binding from the Justices.
---

KStateKing17 posted...

If the grandfathers status limited his options and resources that included education, jobs, and services, wouldn't that also have an effect on his children's potential for success as well?

That's true of like 95% of the population tho.

Most people's ancestors got fucked over by the wealthy and it hinders the to this day.

It's too gray of an area to say "I deserve benefits because my ancestors got screwed."

Okay and what if your ancestors raped, killed and fucked over the ancestors of the guys who eventually fucked them?

Do you now have to give benefits and money to the wealthy?
---

nemu posted...

Can reservations not have an address? Is it literally impossible?

This is a good point in general. However, I don't really see why the address matters. It doesn't prove the person's identity in any way - the other elements of the ID already do that just fine. It could be a mild deterrent against voter fraud (people who don't really live in the area voting), but not really enough to be worthwhile - if someone outright fakes it, they can fake the rest too, except maybe the occasional person who's moved out of state but still has their old ID.

Voter ID itself makes sense, but being that pedantic really doesn't. If it proves they are who they say they are, that should have served its purpose - if they want to be confirming eligibility, they should be checking that on their end (eg. via a list of eligible voters) rather than asking for ID that backs it up.
---

Kavanaugh didn't matter to this case. Trump just wanted him seated in time for Gamble vs US
---

DarkTransient posted...

However, I don't really see why the address matters.

Voting districts I imagine. It may not be a big deal for the presidential or senate election, but for the House it's important. The reason being that they want New Yorkers voting for the Representative over New York City, not the one over Albany.
---

I've always found Americans' resistance to providing proof of identity before voting to be bizarre.
---

thelovefist posted...

I've always found Americans' resistance to providing proof of identity before voting to be bizarre.

It's entirely the execution. All these Republican states that are attempting to implement it are doing it in ways that disproportionately negatively impact minorities.
---

Crazyman93 posted...

DarkTransient posted...

However, I don't really see why the address matters.

Voting districts I imagine. It may not be a big deal for the presidential or senate election, but for the House it's important. The reason being that they want New Yorkers voting for the Representative over New York City, not the one over Albany.

DarkTransient posted...

if they want to be confirming eligibility, they should be checking that on their end (eg. via a list of eligible voters) rather than asking for ID that backs it up.

---

thelovefist posted...

I've always found Americans' resistance to providing proof of identity before voting to be bizarre.

The reason why is because the same people demanding proof try to make it difficult for people obtain proof.

It's not about preventing fraud, it's about voter supression. The statistics show that the people without ID or means of getting ID, tend to be democrats. So Republicans hate them

If it was the other way round, Democrats would hate them and if it was 50-50, no one would care.

But Republicans will spend tax payer money to fix a problem that doesn't exist just to hinder democratic voters.

It's very anti-capitalism.
---

Bio1590 posted...

thelovefist posted...

I've always found Americans' resistance to providing proof of identity before voting to be bizarre.

It's entirely the execution. All these Republican states that are attempting to implement it are doing it in ways that disproportionately negatively impact minorities.

Actually that explains it more succinctly than I put it. Thank you.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

KStateKing17 posted...

If the grandfathers status limited his options and resources that included education, jobs, and services, wouldn't that also have an effect on his children's potential for success as well?

That's true of like 95% of the population tho.

Most people's ancestors got fucked over by the wealthy and it hinders the to this day.

It's too gray of an area to say "I deserve benefits because my ancestors got screwed."

Okay and what if your ancestors raped, killed and fucked over the ancestors of the guys who eventually fucked them?

Do you now have to give benefits and money to the wealthy?

If the families had a history of back and forth attacks and retaliation that's a different story. That sound like that Hatfields vs McCoys type of stuff.

Also I reread your comment and missed the "great" part in there, however if something happened like that and it left the family destitute with no assistance or money given by the culprits or the government, then yes I believe they should be compensated in some way.
---

DarkTransient posted...

Crazyman93 posted...

DarkTransient posted...

However, I don't really see why the address matters.

Voting districts I imagine. It may not be a big deal for the presidential or senate election, but for the House it's important. The reason being that they want New Yorkers voting for the Representative over New York City, not the one over Albany.

DarkTransient posted...

if they want to be confirming eligibility, they should be checking that on their end (eg. via a list of eligible voters) rather than asking for ID that backs it up.

Honestly, it doesn't matter that much anyway, you have to put your home address down when you register to vote, which includes a street address, which actually begs the question of how these people registered to vote in the first place.
---

Crazyman93 posted...

How many of the "First Nations" people are actually interested in living separately from the US, or following traditional views of the tribe or whatever? And how many of them want the benefits of US Citizenship "with special bonuses just for us" like being the only ones in a state allowed to have casinos?

This has nothing to do with what I said, but I'll address it anyway; what happened to them was literal cultural genocide. The idea of keeping them as autonomous states within the state is to help to allow their culture to grow and expand, and avoid dying out.

For example, the Canadian government in the 1960's kidnapped aboriginal children and sent them to 'residential schools', which systematically tortured and abused children in order to get them to stop speaking their language, cut their hair, and live as 'white'. Punishments included having their tongues pierced with needles or being forced to drink floor cleaner for speaking their language. This led to an entire generation that was basically tortured into abandoning their culture.

As for things like casinos, they serve a very important purpose. There is not huge populations in reserves, not enough to support any commercial endeavors, and they don't have the resources to turn the land to industrial ventures. The solution is to create businesses like casinos where they can employ aboriginal peoples and make money, which can be moved back into the community. Obviously, it's not always going to work out that way, but claiming they are just getting special treatment for no reason is obviously completely off base.

This also ignores the fact that agreements were made with said tribes and never fulfilled, or were breached without repercussion. For example, in the prairies, there was recently a case where farmers simply moved onto indigenous lands and passed the land down to their children, who were deemed the legal owners of said stolen land.

As for questioning their patriotism, that's a stupid hill to die on, considering no one else's culture is dependent on them being patriotic enough. I can't speak for anyone else, but most indigenous people I have met or interacted with have been very interested in being involved in Canadian politics, especially moving towards healing and reconciliation.

KStateKing17 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

It's sort of like this; I challenge you to a foot race. Then I break both your knees. I then say, "Okay, well that probably wasn't fair. From now on we will have a fair race. Ready, set, go!".

It's more like your great grandfather got his knees broken by someone else's great grandfather whose desecdent now lives in France.

And as such you demand I give you money and special treatment.

If the grandfathers status limited his options and resources that included education, jobs, and services, wouldn't that also have an effect on his children's potential for success as well? Also weren't some groups of native Americans going through some shit in the 70's?

Yeah, saying, 'it happened in the past' is stupid. I already explained how it's still happening, and that due to the reserve system, people are born into inescapable poverty and no amount of bootstrapping will change systemic racism.

The Government fucked over anyone with Native blood. I literally have a copy of the document that said my great-great-grandfather was supposed to get either land or money ("scrip"), and they picked what they wanted as part of the Government's agreement with the Metis.

Newsflash: no one got anything.
---

thelovefist posted...

I've always found Americans' resistance to providing proof of identity before voting to be bizarre.

You act as if Jim Crow never happened.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

thelovefist posted...

I've always found Americans' resistance to providing proof of identity before voting to be bizarre.

You act as if Jim Crow never happened.

Yeah, in theory, there's nothing wrong with Voter ID laws. The problem is that, in practice, they're an attempt to continue the long, sordid American tradition of disenfranchising poor people, especially African and Hispanic Americans or just anyone who won't vote the "right" way.
If you want to ask people for an I.D. , fine. But voting is a right, and it is the obligation of the states and the federal government to make getting that I.D. easy. And your vote should never be thrown out because you don't have one or you go to the wrong polling place. Because, in the end, voter-side vote fraud basically doesn't exist.