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
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.
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