/
Navajo Nation v. San Juan County Navajo Nation v. San Juan County

Navajo Nation v. San Juan County - PowerPoint Presentation

aaron
aaron . @aaron
Follow
343 views
Uploaded On 2019-02-27

Navajo Nation v. San Juan County - PPT Presentation

The right to vote is preservative of all rights Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966 httpsturnright2goleftfileswordpresscom201303monumentvalley2jpg Navajo Nation v San Juan County ID: 753979

san county navajo juan county san juan navajo indian voting political rights section equal nation vote minority discrimination utah

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Navajo Nation v. San Juan County" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Navajo Nation v. San Juan County

The right to vote is “preservative of all rights.” - Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966)

https://turnright2goleft.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/monument-valley-2.jpgSlide2

Navajo Nation v. San Juan County

Overview of demography, geography, and history of San Juan County, Utah

Discussion of procedure and substance of Navajo Nation v. San Juan County Concurrent litigation, remaining challenges, and broader context

Slide3

SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH

[Placeholder for detailed county map]

Salt Lake City

Arizona

Colorado

New MexicoSlide4

History of Discrimination San Juan County, Utah

“Muddy Roads in Navajo Nation, Keep Kids from School.”

KSL.Com

; December 17, 2015Slide5

Past Voting Rights Litigation

Allan v. Merrell (1957)Yanito

v. Barber (1972)United States v. San Juan County

, Section 2 (1984)

United States v . San Juan Count

y, Section 203 (1984)Slide6

Other Litigation to Achieve Equal Rights

Sinajini and Meyers

cases (1970s - 1990s)Duty to educate Navajo students

Provide adequate bus routes to schools

Build schools on Navajo Reservation

Provide basic services (utilities & water) to existing schools

Implement bilingual and bicultural educational programs

School Bus in Monument Valley, UtahSlide7

Enduring Discrimination in Politics and Governance

Since the 1980s:More than half voting age population in San Juan County is Navajo

Navajo never win majority of Commission or School Board seatsNever chaired Commission

Never won countywide race or appointed to judge

1 of 120 Special Service District board members

1990 Navajo Candidate Slate

Navajo candidates widely ridiculed in press because they “don’t even pay property taxes.”

Source: http://

www.cbc.ca

/news/world/bears-ears-park-battle-1.4046528Slide8

Discrimination in Politics

“Willie Grayeyes is campaigning on promises that if he is elected he will use San Juan County money for projects on the reservation which are clearly the responsibility of the Federal Government or the Navajo Nation to finance…

Bruce Adams has been very successful in preventing the expenditure of San Juan County tax money on reservation projects for which the county has no responsibility.”

- Political Advertisement, San Juan Record, 2012

Source:

KSL.com

Source: Utah Dine

Bikeyah

Willie

Grayeyes

Bruce AdamsSlide9

Navajo Nation v. San Juan County

2011:Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission offered assistance with redistricting2012:

Complaint filed in Utah District CourtCase reassigned to Judge Shelby2 Claims for County Commission; 2 for School BoardEqual Protection

Voting Rights Act

Slide10

School Board Claims

Overall Population Deviation = 37%Slide11

Commission Claims

93% Any Part Indian

32% Any Part Indian

27% Any Part IndianSlide12

What makes election districts

lawful or unlawful?One-person, One-voteImpermissible Racial Classifications

Voting Rights ActRespect for Traditional Redistricting PrinciplesSlide13

Equal Protection Clause:One-Person, One-Vote

Election districts must provide voters equal weight in representation

One-person, one-vote (Reynolds v. Sims)Applies to states and political subdivisions

Less than 10% deviation = safe harbor

Congressional v. local districts

Greater than 10% deviation = apply scrutiny

Burden shift: political subdivision must demonstrate legitimate governmental interestSlide14

Equal Protection Clause:

Intentional Racial DiscriminationRacial gerrymandering: Race must not be “dominant and controlling consideration”

Traditional redistricting principles must not be subordinated Need discriminatory purposeDirect evidence of legislative purpose; or

Circumstantial evidence of shape and demographics

Apply Scrutiny

Burden shift: political subdivision needs compelling governmental interest

Compliance with Section 2 as compelling interestSlide15

Voting Rights Act – Section 2

Section 2 prohibits voting practices and procedures resulting in a “denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”Redistricting plans, at-large elections, hiring poll workers, voter registration, and voter identification requirements.

“The essence of a § 2 claim is that a certain electoral law, practice, or structure

interacts with social and historical conditions

to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by [minority] and white voters to elect their preferred representatives.”

Thornburg v.

Gingles

(1986)Slide16

Section 2: Gingles Preconditions

Vote dilution claims under Section 2Does the electoral system deprive the minority group of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect their candidates of choice?

Gingles Factors – threshold question

Numerosity & Compactness

Is minority group politically cohesive?

Does white minority vote as a bloc to defeat minority-preferred candidates? Slide17

Section 2: Senate Factors

THE SENATE FACTORSHistory of voting-related discrimination;

Extent to which voting is racially polarized;

Extent to political subdivision used voting practices that enhance opportunity for discrimination;

Exclusion of members of the minority group from candidate slating processes;

Extent to which minority group members bear effects of discrimination in education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process;

Use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns; and

Extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Tenuous justification

Lack of responsiveness

S.Rep

. No. 97-417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. (1982), pages 28-29.Slide18

Traditional Redistricting Principles

CompactContiguous Protect Political Subdivisions

Protect IncumbentsPreserve Communities of InterestSlide19

OPINION: School Board Districts violate one-person, one-vote mandate of Equal Protection Clause

37.69% is prima facie violation of Equal Protection Clause.

Extreme population deviation increased magnitude of violation. Failure to redistrict for 25 years probative of constitutional violation.

County offered legitimate governmental interest to justify extreme population inequality.

97% AP Am. Indian

98% AP Am. Indian

59% AP Am. Indian

25% AP Am. Indian

6% AP Am. IndianSlide20

OPINION:

Racial discrimination is basis for Commission districts

Race was “dominant and controlling consideration: for creating and maintaining the “Indian district.”

Race predominated over traditional redistricting principles.

1984 Consent Decree not a compelling governmental interest justifying the creation and maintenance of District 3 in perpetuity.

“San Juan County is not frozen in time, and neither are the interests and attitudes of its citizens.”

- Judge Shelby, Navajo Nation v. San Juan County

93% Any Part Indian

32% Any Part Indian

27% Any Part IndianSlide21

Remedial Phase

2016: Primary and general elections held under unconstitutional plans2016: Submission of proposed remedial plans

Limited discovery  insight into County’s development of its remedial plans

Parties submit and file objections

County gets deference

 if plans are lawful they will be adopted

July 2017 Opinion

County’s proposed remedial plans again violate Equal Protection Clause

County used impermissible racial classification

Court declines to review plaintiffs’ remedial plans

Appointment of Special Master

County to pay costs as “wrongdoer”

New plans due November 15, 2017Slide22

Meanwhile…

2013: County closes all physical polling locations, switches to vote-by-mail election2014: Only remaining early voting and election day polling place is

200 miles from farthest precinct on Navajo Nation Reservation (4 hour one way trip);2016: ACLU, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, and others file lawsuit under Section 2 and Section 203;

County reopens three polling locations for 2016 elections; files counterclaims alleging conspiracy, eventually counterclaims were dismissed;

Case will proceed to trial in 2018 on Voting Rights Act Section 2 and 203 claims related to 2016 elections.

Source: http://

inthesetimes.com

/rural-

america

/entry/18316/going-postal-how-all-mail-voting-thwarts-

navajo

-votersSlide23

Lessons From This Case

Voting rights litigation can be costly and complex Tangential fights can lead to lengthy delays

Consistent unwillingness to settle Mistakes of law by County

Remedial costs allocated to County and future fee recovery

Slide24

Challenges Ahead

Shelby County v. Holder – San Juan County is classic “bad actor” but no preclearance no longer exists

How to improve political participation, voter registration, and turnout?How to educate voters regarding a changing electoral landscape?

Continued vote denial battles and other possible lawsuits

How to change the mindset of the County?

Montezuma Creek Polling Location, 2016Slide25

Final thought…

“Increased Indian office holding and political participation . . . has conferred undeniable benefits…It has made it possible for Indians to pursue careers in politics and make the values and resources of Indian communities more available to society as a whole. It has provided Indian role models, conferred racial dignity, and helped dispel the myth that Indians are incapable of political leadership. It has also required whites to deal with Indians more nearly as equals, a change in political relationships with profound implications.”

- Laughlin McDonald,

American Indians and the Fight for Equal Voting RightsSlide26

Thank you!

Bears Ears National Monument

San Juan County, Utah