Why is it that the Native Americans have to now answer to a Secretary of State about voter IDs? These are sovereign nations of people. They vote as residents within the USA because so many laws and treaties directly effect their lives. At one point the ONLY authority allowed on Native American lands was the FBI.
The idea a STATE GOVERNMENT carries more clout than federal laws is a bit odd. How are the Native Americans structured through federal laws and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to vote? The State government has little clout with these decisions.
The idea a STATE GOVERNMENT carries more clout than federal laws is a bit odd. How are the Native Americans structured through federal laws and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to vote? The State government has little clout with these decisions.
...But tribal officials (click here) and Democrats say it appears aimed at making it harder for thousands of Native Americans to vote, particularly those who live on reservations without conventional street names. The law specifically bans the use of P.O. boxes as an alternative form of address, rendering many tribal ID cards invalid.
Native American activists have responded with plans to create addresses on the spot for those who need them on Election Day....
The Supreme Court decision wasn't actually a ruling so much as an opinion from Justice Ginsberg and Justice Kagan. The two Justices believed the case should have been heard, so hence their opinion.
The Supreme Court (click here) has been back in session for just over a week and its first rulings are rolling in.
Among them? A decision Tuesday in which the Supreme Court refused to intervene in a challenge to a North Dakota voter ID law....
...The challengers therefore submitted an urgent request to the Supreme Court asking the justices to toss out the law, but the Court denied it without explanation—with the exception of Justice Ginsburg, who wrote a dissent to which Justice Kagan joined....
...In her dissent, Ginsburg highlighted that 70,000 North Dakota residents, which constitutes nearly 20% of the turnout “in a regular quadrennial election—lack a qualifying ID” under the the law’s provisions. Another 18,000 residents “lack supplemental documentation sufficient to permit them to vote without a qualifying ID.”
What’s more, Ginsburg noted that changing the rules ahead of November’s election could cause confusion amongst voters. “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 State’s website announced for months the ID requirements as they existed under that injunction,” Ginsburg said....
I think it is unclear as to the status of the US 8th Circuit Court. They put a hold on the federal district court. Is there an understanding the Circuit Court's hold is limited on a timeline following the Supreme Court's decision or is the hold permanent which seems unrealistic. A hold can't possibly be made permanent in the face of a decision or lack thereof.
Then there is some issue regarding a homeless population of Native Americans. If they ride horses, which many do, to and from town there is a good chance the definition of homeless changes with the tribe. I think there is interference in the culture of the tribe(s) and a misunderstanding as to how the tribes are structured.
On April 24, 2017, (click here) North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum signed House Bill 1369. This restrictive voter ID law put North Dakota beyond the norms of voter ID laws and violates the constitutional rights of the state’s citizens. Just like North Dakota’s previous law, which was found unconstitutional by a federal court, this law makes it harder for some citizens—specifically Native American citizens—to exercise their right to vote....
I think the North Dakota Voter ID law is racist. Not that it matters, Robert's Court dismantled The Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court (click here) has been back in session for just over a week and its first rulings are rolling in.
Among them? A decision Tuesday in which the Supreme Court refused to intervene in a challenge to a North Dakota voter ID law....
...The challengers therefore submitted an urgent request to the Supreme Court asking the justices to toss out the law, but the Court denied it without explanation—with the exception of Justice Ginsburg, who wrote a dissent to which Justice Kagan joined....
...In her dissent, Ginsburg highlighted that 70,000 North Dakota residents, which constitutes nearly 20% of the turnout “in a regular quadrennial election—lack a qualifying ID” under the the law’s provisions. Another 18,000 residents “lack supplemental documentation sufficient to permit them to vote without a qualifying ID.”
What’s more, Ginsburg noted that changing the rules ahead of November’s election could cause confusion amongst voters. “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 State’s website announced for months the ID requirements as they existed under that injunction,” Ginsburg said....
I think it is unclear as to the status of the US 8th Circuit Court. They put a hold on the federal district court. Is there an understanding the Circuit Court's hold is limited on a timeline following the Supreme Court's decision or is the hold permanent which seems unrealistic. A hold can't possibly be made permanent in the face of a decision or lack thereof.
Then there is some issue regarding a homeless population of Native Americans. If they ride horses, which many do, to and from town there is a good chance the definition of homeless changes with the tribe. I think there is interference in the culture of the tribe(s) and a misunderstanding as to how the tribes are structured.
On April 24, 2017, (click here) North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum signed House Bill 1369. This restrictive voter ID law put North Dakota beyond the norms of voter ID laws and violates the constitutional rights of the state’s citizens. Just like North Dakota’s previous law, which was found unconstitutional by a federal court, this law makes it harder for some citizens—specifically Native American citizens—to exercise their right to vote....
I think the North Dakota Voter ID law is racist. Not that it matters, Robert's Court dismantled The Voting Rights Act.
A History of Native Voting Rights (click here)
The right to vote is considered a fundamental right within our democracy; however, for Native Americans, the fight to obtain voting rights is couched in a long history of racism and struggle. When the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1866, making all persons born in the United States citizens, Indians on reservations were specifically excluded. Michigan Senator Jacob Howard opined, “I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me…” (Congressional Globe. May 30, 1866). page 2895). There were pragmatic reasons, beyond racism, to keep Native Americans from voting; given their large numbers, votes by Native Americans at the time would have wielded significant political power....
It doesn't make sense to me that a sovereign nation of people granted greater autonomy in law enforcement and taking greater and greater steps for economic growth for their Native American citizens would have to fall under a state statute when the culture involved is so very different.
Until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, (click here) Indians occupied an unusual status under federal law. Some had acquired citizenship by marrying white men. Others received citizenship through military service, by receipt of allotments, or through special treaties or special statutes. But many were still not citizens, and they were barred from the ordinary processes of naturalization open to foreigners. Congress took what some saw as the final step on June 2, 1924 and granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States.
The law that effect Native Americans are all based in federal statute. Some federal laws caused damage to the Native Americans' culture.
Approved on February 8, 1887, "An Act to Provide for the Allotment of Lands in Severalty to Indians on the Various Reservations," known as the Dawes Act, (click here) emphasized severalty, the treatment of Native Americans as individuals rather than as members of tribes.
The Dawes Act was racist and turned tribal decisions regarding land into individual decisions. There was considerable land lost simply because individual Native Americans didn't think that way. There have been a lot of problems with maintaining Native American culture simply because it is not respected by the USA. It is seen as inefficient and non-productive. The Native American culture is not based in capitalism and land use is sacred in many instances.
A 1928 study known as the Meriam Report (click here) assessed the problems of Native Americans. The report revealed to the government that its policies had oppressed Native Americans and destroyed their culture and society. The people suffered from poverty, exploitation and discrimination. This study spurred the passage of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. This Act returned some of the surplus land to Native Americans and urged tribes to engage in active self-government. The U.S. government invested in the development of health care, education and community structure. Quality of life on Indian lands improved. Today some Native Americans run successful businesses, while others still live in poverty.
The decision by the Robert's Court not to hear the emergency petition is rather bizarre and I believe highly underinformed. The federal government has always been the authority in regard to federal law. This new clout by the State of North Dakota is probably illegal, but, being heard by intelligent minds seems to be an issue.
The Native American tribes of North Dakota should proceed with their plans to satisfy the state, but, should also continue lawsuits reclaiming their tribal authority over that of the state.
It doesn't make sense to me that a sovereign nation of people granted greater autonomy in law enforcement and taking greater and greater steps for economic growth for their Native American citizens would have to fall under a state statute when the culture involved is so very different.
Until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, (click here) Indians occupied an unusual status under federal law. Some had acquired citizenship by marrying white men. Others received citizenship through military service, by receipt of allotments, or through special treaties or special statutes. But many were still not citizens, and they were barred from the ordinary processes of naturalization open to foreigners. Congress took what some saw as the final step on June 2, 1924 and granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States.
The law that effect Native Americans are all based in federal statute. Some federal laws caused damage to the Native Americans' culture.
Approved on February 8, 1887, "An Act to Provide for the Allotment of Lands in Severalty to Indians on the Various Reservations," known as the Dawes Act, (click here) emphasized severalty, the treatment of Native Americans as individuals rather than as members of tribes.
The Dawes Act was racist and turned tribal decisions regarding land into individual decisions. There was considerable land lost simply because individual Native Americans didn't think that way. There have been a lot of problems with maintaining Native American culture simply because it is not respected by the USA. It is seen as inefficient and non-productive. The Native American culture is not based in capitalism and land use is sacred in many instances.
A 1928 study known as the Meriam Report (click here) assessed the problems of Native Americans. The report revealed to the government that its policies had oppressed Native Americans and destroyed their culture and society. The people suffered from poverty, exploitation and discrimination. This study spurred the passage of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. This Act returned some of the surplus land to Native Americans and urged tribes to engage in active self-government. The U.S. government invested in the development of health care, education and community structure. Quality of life on Indian lands improved. Today some Native Americans run successful businesses, while others still live in poverty.
The decision by the Robert's Court not to hear the emergency petition is rather bizarre and I believe highly underinformed. The federal government has always been the authority in regard to federal law. This new clout by the State of North Dakota is probably illegal, but, being heard by intelligent minds seems to be an issue.
The Native American tribes of North Dakota should proceed with their plans to satisfy the state, but, should also continue lawsuits reclaiming their tribal authority over that of the state.
