South Dakota isn't getting much attention in this election cycle. The state is reliably red at the presidential level, and none of the major down-ballot races are particularly competitive. But that doesn't mean that all is well and good.
Last month, officials in sparsely-populated , South Dakota, . The move was touted as a cost-saving measure designed to save the cash-strapped county about $1,000. But it meant that some voters -- and particularly Native American voters -- would have to drive as many as 40 miles each way to the county seat in order to cast a vote. And, to make matters worse, South Dakota has one of the most restrictive absentee ballot laws in the country, requiring voters to have their absentee ballot applications notarized or witnessed by county officials.
Soon after the county's move, the contacted the ACLU's Voting Rights Project for help. Mellette County is within the historical boundaries of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, and Native Americans still make up about half of the county's population.
We analyzed the impact of the county's decision and concluded that the poll closure would have a severe and disparate impact on Native American voters. Not only would a higher percentage of Indians than non-Indians have to travel significant distances to vote or cast an absentee ballot, but Native Americans were also much less likely than whites to have access to a vehicle or the money to pay for gas. And, to add insult to injury, the all-white county commission moved the county's only remaining polling place next door to the sheriff's office, a place that would further deter Indians from voting because of a history of friction between Native Americans and law enforcement in the county.
Fortunately, this story has a happy ending. One of the largest television stations in the state ran a story on the poll closure, and word of our investigation got out. Less than 24 hours before we were prepared to file suit against the county on behalf of Native American voters, county officials called a hastily arranged meeting and rescinded the poll closing ordinance. Score another win for Indian voters in South Dakota!
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”