Supreme Court should uphold sovereign status for Native nations in Voting Rights Act case

The law serves as the basis for a court case that may soon be heard and decided upon by the Supreme Court of the United States, SCOTUS. The following is an excerpt describing the case:

In 2021, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, the Spirit Lake Tribe, and three individual Native American voters filed a lawsuit against North Dakota’s Secretary of State. They claimed that the state’s 2021 redistricting plan diluted Native American voting strength, violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota denied the Secretary’s motion to dismiss, which argued that private plaintiffs lacked a cause of action under Section 2 and could not use § 1983 to enforce it. The district court allowed the case to proceed, and after a bench trial, it ruled that the 2021 redistricting map violated Section 2. The court permanently enjoined the Secretary from using the map and ordered the North Dakota Legislative Assembly to adopt a remedial map. When the Assembly failed to do so, the court imposed the plaintiffs’ proposed map.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The main issue was whether private plaintiffs could enforce Section 2 of the VRA through § 1983. The court held that Section 2 does not unambiguously confer an individual right enforceable under § 1983. The court emphasized that Section 2 focuses on the entities regulated (states and political subdivisions) rather than unambiguously creating individual rights. Consequently, the court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it for lack of a cause of action.

On July 24, an application for a stay in the case was presented to Justice Kavanaugh, who referred it to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and granted it. The mandate of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case number 23-3655 was suspended pending further action and possible action.

It has been strongly noted in the media that Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch would have denied the application.

As stated earlier, the legal question presented before the court is:

“The main issue was whether private plaintiffs could enforce Section 2 of the VRA through § 1983. The court held that Section 2 does not unambiguously confer an individual right enforceable under § 1983.”

It is easy to discern that three of the individual plaintiffs, Wesley Davis, Collette Brown, and Zachary S. King qualify as private individual plaintiffs. I applaud each of them for standing up for what is right, true, and just. Hoka! Giddihah! Miro’gaxx! Good Luck!

However, I beg to question as to how, why and if the tribal governing bodies known as “Tribes” should have gotten directly involved or granted any legal standing in the case. Treaty Tribes, are supposed to be separate, sovereign and on at least an equal footing with states. Most, if not all of us in the Great Plains are Treaty Tribes.

As a reminder, the U.S. Supreme Court states that “in 2021, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, the Spirit Lake Tribe, and three individual Native American voters filed a lawsuit against North Dakota’s Secretary of State.”

Under this current ruling, should it stand, the “Tribes”are being reduced and classified as private entities, private corporations, or minority special interest groups. Sovereignty, however, carries significant meaning for Indian people. Whereas, private entities are not governing bodies meant to uphold the public trust.

Native nations, such as the Spirit Lake and Turtle Mountain, are political bodies that predate the formation of the United States of America. Congress also recognizes the tribes as political bodies governed by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934.

Matse’ Ishiadz, Mi Agawa Nux Baga Etse’ Gowitz