Shirt v. Hazeltine
| Decision Date | 15 September 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ. 01-3032-KES.,Civ. 01-3032-KES. |
| Parties | Alfred Bone SHIRT; Belva Black Lance; Bonnie High Bull; and Germaine Moves Camp, Plaintiffs, v. Joyce HAZELTINE, in her official capacity as Secretary of the State of South Dakota; Scott Eccarius, in his official capacity as Speaker of the South Dakota House of Representatives; South Dakota House of Representatives; Arnold Brown, in his official capacity as President of the South Dakota Senate; and South Dakota Senate, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
Bryan L. Sells, Laughlin McDonald, Neil Bradley, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Atlanta, GA, Patrick K. Duffy, Duffy & Duffy, Rapid City, SD, for Plaintiffs.
John P. Guhin, Sherri Sundem Wald, Pierre, SD, for Defendants.
Cheryl Schrempp Dupris, Pierre, SD, Gaye L. Tenoso, R. Tamar Hagler, Department of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Washington, DC, for Amicus.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Parties & Background ...............................................980
II. History of Districts 26 and 27 .....................................980
III. 2000 Census Data and the Current Legislative Plan ..................982
IV. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act .................................986
A. Sufficiently Large and Geographically Compact ...................987
B. Minority Political Cohesiveness .................................995
1. Dr. Cole's Analysis ..........................................996
2. Dr. Zax's Analysis ...........................................998
3. Reliability of Each Method ..................................1001
4. Non-Statistical Evidence of Cohesiveness ....................1004
5. Partisanship and Low Voter Turnout...........................1008
C. Usual Defeat of Indian-Preferred Candidates.....................1010
D. Totality of the Circumstances ..................................1017
1. History of Discrimination ..................................1018
a. Voting ..................................................1018
b. Discrimination in Representation ........................1023
c. Recent Electoral Processes ..............................1023
d. Access to Polling Places ................................1026
e. 1975 Amendments to the Voting Rights Act ................1027
f. Redistricting and Representation ........................1028
g. Other Evidence of Official Discrimination ...............1028
h. Unofficial Discrimination ...............................1031
2. The Extent of Racially Polarized Voting ....................1034
3. Use of Voting Procedures for Discriminatory Purposes .......1036
4. Access to Candidate Slating Process ........................1037
5. Socioeconomic Disparities ..................................1037
6. Racial Appeals in the Political Process ....................1041
7. Indian Elected Officials ...................................1042
8. Unresponsiveness ...........................................1043
9. Tenuousness ................................................1047
10. Proportionality ............................................1048
11. Indian Candidacies .........................................1049
12. Voter Apathy and Low Turnout ...............................1050
V. Remedy ...........................................................1052
Plaintiffs contend that South Dakota's 2001 legislative redistricting plan dilutes Indian voting strength by packing District 27 with a 90 percent supermajority of Indians, in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This, plaintiffs contend, minimized the total number of districts in which Indians could select the candidate of their choice. Plaintiffs seek to create at least one additional single-member house district with a majority of Indians as a remedy. Defendants deny the allegations. After considering the evidence admitted during a nine-day court trial, the court determines by a preponderance of the evidence the following facts and conclusions of law.
Plaintiffs Alfred Bone Shirt and Belva Black Lance are Indians, qualified electors, members of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, and residents of Todd County, which is currently part of District 27. T.III p. 634, 688. Plaintiffs Bonnie High Bull and Germaine Moves Camp are Indians, qualified electors, and residents of Bennett and Jackson Counties, respectively, which are currently part of District 26. Joint Stipulations of Fact § 1 (Docket 267).
Defendant Chris Nelson is South Dakota's Secretary of State, Secretariat of the State Election Board, and the successor in office to the original defendant, Joyce Hazeltine. Complaint (Docket 1); Answer (Docket 23); T.VI p. 1513. Defendant South Dakota House of Representatives is one of two houses of South Dakota's legislature. Defendant Matthew Michaels is the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the successor-in-office to Scott Eccarius, an original defendant in this case. Complaint (Docket 1); Answer (Docket 23); T.VIII p. 2215. Defendant South Dakota Senate is South Dakota's other house of the legislature and defendant Arnold Brown is the President Pro Tempore of the South Dakota Senate. Complaint (Docket 1); Answer (Docket 23); T.VIII p. 2158.
Plaintiffs filed suit on December 26, 2001, alleging that South Dakota's 2001 legislative redistricting plan ("the Plan") violates their rights under §§ 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Complaint (Docket 1). On January 29, 2002, a three-judge panel heard plaintiffs' § 5 claim and held that defendants violated § 5 by failing to preclear the Plan. Only the § 2 claim now remains to be decided by this court. See Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, 200 F.Supp.2d 1150 (D.S.D.2002).
From 1973 to 1975, a task force analyzed Indian/State government relations to improve tribal and state relations in South Dakota. It consisted of nine tribal chairmen, two senators, two representatives, and five lay people. Thomas Short Bull, a member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe (OST), was the executive director. T.II p. 488-89; Ex. 268-270.
As of 1970, there were 28 legislative districts; none were majority Indian, and no Indians had been elected under that plan. One of the task force's reports discussed voting as it related to Indians in South Dakota. T.II p. 491-94; Ex. 18 p. 162-185; Ex. 267 p. 14.
At trial, Short Bull testified that the task force concluded that the legislative district plan gerrymandered the Rosebud1 and Pine Ridge2 Reservations by "divid[ing it] into three legislative districts, effectively neutralizing the Indian vote in that area." None of the districts were majority Indian. T.II p. 491; Ex. 18 p. 167; Ex. 269 p. 9. A 1974 report by the task force recommended that Shannon, Washabaugh, Todd, and Bennett Counties be combined into one legislative district, which would be a majority Indian district. T.II p. 495; Ex. 18 p. 186; Ex. 267 p. 25.
The legislature never considered the plan. Short Bull testified that The task force did propose eight other bills in 1974 that affected Indians, and the legislature passed seven of them. T.II. p. 497-506; Ex. 268 p. 43. In 1975, the legislature chose to not fund the task force and it was dissolved. A state Civil Rights Commission followed instead. T.II p. 506, 514.
Following the 1980 census, the legislature drew a new redistricting plan. The state Civil Rights Commission recommended that the state should create a district in the area of the Rosebud and Pine Ridge Reservations. After the national Civil Rights Commission received the state commission's report, the Department of Justice instructed South Dakota that it would not approve its reapportionment plan unless the state created a substantially Indian district. T.II p. 513-14. The redistricting plan that was enacted in 1981 had 35 single-member senate districts. Each district also elected two house members. District 28, which included Shannon and Todd Counties and half of Bennett County, became the first majority Indian district in South Dakota. SL 1881, ch. 14, § 2; 1983, ch. 10, § 2. In 1982, District 28 was 86 percent Indian. Short Bull was elected from District 28 in 1982 and became the first Indian state Senator. T.II. p. 488, 515-16.
The court finds Short Bull's testimony credible. His knowledge and experiences as the director of the task force and as the first Indian state senator in South Dakota make his testimony reliable, credible, and probative. Accordingly, the court accepts his testimony and gives it substantial weight.
Following the 1990 census, the legislature again engaged in re-districting. Ex. 869; Ex. 870. Meetings on the issue were held in June 1991 at Sinte Gleska College in Mission, South Dakota, the Bennett County Courthouse, and Oglala Lakota College (OLC) in Kyle, South Dakota. Ex. 869 p. 1. Testimony at the meetings expressed concern about diluting the Lakota (Indian) vote and about drawing districts "to maximize the opportunity for Lakota people to elect a Lakota to represent them." People testified about concerns regarding the accuracy of the census results. They believed the reservations had a "significantly greater population than the Census indicated." Although some testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n
...Ill. 1993) (examining the general election history of specific city commissioner offices at issue); see also Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, 336 F. Supp. 2d 976, 996 (D.S.D. 2004) (explaining a common hierarchy of election history value, when such history is available, noting that "[e]ndogenous el......
-
Thomas v. Bryant
......[is convened for] all federal constitutional challenges that could result in a reapportionment." (emphasis added)). 32 See, e.g. , Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine , 336 F. Supp. 2d 976 (D.S.D. 2004), aff’d , 461 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2006) (South Dakota House and Senate); Metts v. Almond , 217 ......
-
Thomas v. Reeves
...3d 1351, 1357 (N.D. Ala. 2019) (rejecting argument that a single judge could not hear Section 2 challenge); Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine , 336 F. Supp. 2d 976, 980 (D.S.D. 2004) (same as Rural West ); Old Person v. Brown , 182 F. Supp. 2d 1002, 1003 (D. Mont. 2002) (single judge hearing Section ......
-
Request for Advisory Opinion, Docket No. 130589. Calendar No. 1.
...Nation has shown that prejudice may manifest itself in the treatment of some groups." Id.; see also Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, 336 F.Supp.2d 976, 1018-1023, 1026-1027, 1028-1034 (D.S.D., 2004) ("[T]here is substantial evidence that South Dakota officially excluded Indians from voting and hold......
-
American Indians and the Fight for Equal Voting Rights.
...Voting Rights Act in Indian Country: South Dakota, a Case Study, 29 AM. INDIAN L. REV. 43, 66 (2004) (quoting Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, 336 F. Supp. 2d 976, 1022 (D.S.D. (104.) McDonald does describe, in relatively brief terms, some aspects of tribal self-government, but he does so in the co......