US District Court of North Dakota Chief Judge Rules in Favor of Native Americans Seeking Redistricting of Two ND Senate and Four ND House Districts

Posted on by November 18, 2023

On November 17, 2023, US District Court of North Dakota Chief Judge Peter D. Welty, a Trump appointee, ruled that North Dakota State Senate Districts 9 and 15, and the two ND House Districts within each, were in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in an action brought against the State of North Dakota by two Native American tribes and three individuals.

Based on the Gingles case from the US Supreme Court, Judge Welte ruled that the plaintiffs met all three necessary conditions:

#1: The minority group . . . is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district; and,

#2: The minority group . . . is politically cohesive; and,

#3: The white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it—in the absence of special circumstances . . . usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.

The legislature and the ND Secretary of State have until December 22, 2023 to come up with a plan to remedy the situation, and the new districts will be used for the November 2024 elections.

His opinion has detailed analyses as to how he arrived at his opinion.

Here is Judge Welte’s decision.

Comments

US District Court of North Dakota Chief Judge Rules in Favor of Native Americans Seeking Redistricting of Two ND Senate and Four ND House Districts — 44 Comments

  6. @BR,

    In ND, House members are generally not elected from subdistricts. Instead, two House members are elected from each Senate district.

    In a very few instances, subdistricts are used so that Indian reservations may elect a House member in a Senate district where they are a minority. That was done by the legislature.

    The court’s plan links two reservations so that Indians form a majority in a senate district, so that no subdistricts are used.

    The other senate district will be more decisively White.

    The Democrats elected from the new district will be overwhelmingly isolated in the legislature. I suspect that the senator and both House members will be from the larger reservation.

  7. What AZ is saying is that the individual voters who are allegedly disenfranchised can not be identified.

    Alternatively, if inability to elect a candidate of choice is a denial or abridgement of the right to vote then roughly 40% of voters are denied the right to vote.

  8. https://www.yahoo.com/news/2024-battle-senate-majority-five-090027192.html

    2024 — usa minority rule senate election-

    5 marginal seats
    —
    HOW MANY TX CASES ABOUT —

    EQUAL BALLOT ACCESS
    MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDERS. ???
    —
    15 AMDT ONLY ABOUT DEFINITION OF ELECTOR —

    N-O-T IF EACH/ANY ELECTOR CAN ELECT ANYBODY.
    —
    PANIC AMONG NEW ELEPHANTS IN CONTROL AFTER VERY CLOSE ELECTION OF US GRANT IN NOV 1868 IN SOME NORTHERN STATES — MOST OF JAN-FEB 1869 IN GERRYMANDER CONGRESS ABOUT NON-WHITES VOTING / HOLDING OFFICES >>> THE *NEGATIVE* 15TH AMDT >>> 1870 ENFORCEMENT ACT >>> MOSTLY REPEALED BY DEMS IN 1892 >>> 1965 VRA

  14. @JR
    I know you know this, but the law is not about inability to elect a candidate of choice in general. It’s specifically inability of a racial group (don’t ask me why race).

    Could we elect representatives more proportionally? Of course we can. But that’s a political question, not something to be decided in court.

  19. JR posted:

    “The other senate district will be more decisively White.”

    This is a point about redistricting that is seldom mentioned. When minority districts are deliberately created, the remain districts become overwhelmingly majoritarian by default.

    It would be better to create large, multi member districts, and let voters create their own “virtual” districts with their actual votes.

  22. @WZ,

    In North Dakota each district elects one senator and two representatives. All 3 are elected at the same election for a four year term. North Dakota could switch to a unicameral legislature with 3 members from small districts (about 15,000 population) using proportional representation. You would have the same number of legislators holed up in Bismarck, while maintaining the same level of locality.

  30. No, it wasn’t. Nothing about North Dakota or any other state makes court ordered districts for special interests ok, especially when it’s federal interference. Where are the court ordered districts for redheads? Left handed people? Catholics? Rich people? Poor people? Cat owners? Etc etc. And why is the federal government telling North Dakota how to draw legislative districts? That’s a reversal of the proper relationship between federal and State governments. The federal behemoth has grown far beyond anything intended or remotely sane, even above and beyond population growth.

  31. The best solution for native tribes is not White man’s government “help” or idiotic wrangling over political district line’s. It’s total independence as true sovereign nations. There are plenty of successful micronations, and no reason I know of that aboriginal Americans could not manage their own.

  32. Should Scandinavian ancestry be accounted for when drawing district lines in North Dakota? This is the level of idiocy the federal courts are engaged in.

  33. PR IN ALL REGIMES

    SIMPLE PR —

    TOTAL VOTES / TOTAL MEMBERS = EQUAL VOTES TO ELECT EACH MEMBER

    HOW MANY FACTIONS IN EACH STATE ??? IN THE USA ???

  34. THE FEW SURVIVING AMERICAN INDIANS AFTER GENOCIDES SINCE 1607 {VA COLONY FORMED] WERE MADE USA CITIZENS IN 1924 AND 1940 USA LAWS.

    >>> TRIBES ONLY MEAN SOMETHING VIA TRIBAL CORP STUFF.

    NOT SURE WHEN LAST USA *TREATY* WAS MADE WITH AN AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBE.

    ALL SORTS OF USA LAWS RE INDIANS VIA 1-8-3 IN US CODE.

  37. FOR NON-TROLL MORONS TRYING TO BE HOPELESS MORON CUTE BY T OR C OR N DAYS —

    PR = PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AKA P.R. — NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH PRESS RELEASES.

    PRINT AND TAPE ON COMPUTER — HOPEFULLY ON ENTIRE SCREEN SO THAT TROLL MORON POSTS CAN NOT BE SEEN.

  40. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny

    MADISON, FEDERALIST, NO 47, PARA 2, PART
    —
    TOTAL SOP. 1/3 TYRANTS IS DANGEROUS ENOUGH

    PART OF P-A-T

  41. @Porcus

    The argument on why race and not left-handed people is that most people of a race (especially a minority race) vote as a bloc. Do they? How often? What is race? And if they’re a local majority, they should get seats at the table. Is that fair? Who gets to make the decision?

    Suppose representatives were chosen proportionally, with several candidates/parties, without the spoiler effect. Would the minority race still vote as a bloc? If yes, then we’re in a sticky situation. We have to come together, or break apart (or fight). If no, then we’re trying to solve an artificial problem.

  44. The notion that races vote as blocs is nonsense. Races, sexes, age groups, education levels, income levels, professions, religions, and many other demographic factors can have voting propensity. What are they going to mandate next, homosexual voting districts?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.