Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 1 of 32

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTAEASTERN DIVISION

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa
Indians, Spirit Lake Tribe, Wesley Davis,
Zachery S. King, and Collette Brown.
Case No. _______________________v.

ALVIN JAEGER, in his official capacity as
Secretary of State of North Dakota.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 10310 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs file this action
challenging North Dakota’s legislative redistricting as a violation of Section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act. The new redistricting law dilutes the voting strength of Native
American voters from the reservations of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians
and the Spirit Lake Tribe by packing and cracking those voters, reducing from two to one
the number of state house seats in which Native American voters in this region of thestate have an opportunity to elect their candidate of choice.
INTRODUCTION
1.

On November 11, 2021, Governor Doug Burgum signed into law House Bill

No. 1504 (“HB 1504”), redrawing North Dakota’s state legislative districts to account for1

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 2 of 32

population shifts captured by the 2020 Census. H.B. 1504, 67th Leg., Spec. Sess. (N.D.
2021).
2.

HB 1504 establishes an effective Native American voting majority for two

state house seats; however, the Voting Rights Act (“Voting Rights Act” or “VRA”)
requires the establishment of an effective Native American voting majority for three statehouse seats that will allow Native American voters to elect the candidate of their choice.
3.

North Dakota has 47 state legislative districts, and traditionally one senatorand two state representatives are elected at large from each district. However, North
Dakota law permits state house representatives to be elected either at-large or from
subdistricts within a given senatorial district. N.D.C.C. 54-03-01.5(2).
4.

HB 1504 contains two house subdistricts in which Native Americans havea meaningful opportunity to elect candidates of their choice to the North Dakota State
House. Those are House District 9A and House District 4A. Residents of each subdistrict
elect only a single representative to the state house.
5.

House District 4A covers the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation of the

Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara (MHA) Nation.
6.

HB 1504’s redistricting plan places the Turtle Mountain Reservation into

District 9 (divided into subdistricts 9A and 9B) and the Spirit Lake Reservation into
District 15 (with no subdistricts).
7.

By subdividing District 9 and keeping Spirit Lake out of District 9, the plan

simultaneously packs Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians members into one

2Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 3 of 32

house district, and cracks Spirit Lake Tribe members out of any majority Native house
district.
8.

The packing of Native American voters into a single state house subdistrict,and the cracking of nearby Native American voters into two other districts dominated bywhite voters who bloc vote against Native American’s preferred candidates, unlawfully
dilutes the voting rights of Turtle Mountain and Spirit Lake Native Americans inviolation of Section 2 of the VRA.
9.

In order to comply with the VRA, North Dakota must implement a

redistricting plan in which Native American voters on the Turtle Mountain and Spirit
Lake Reservations comprise an effective, geographically compact majority in a single
legislative district. Such a plan can be drawn, is legally required, and would provide
those Native American voters the opportunity to elect their preferred candidates to bothat-large state house seats and the state senate.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

1343(a)(3) and (4), and 1357, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 52 U.S.C. § 10301, et seq. Plaintiffs’ action
for declaratory and injunctive relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, as wellas Rules 57 and 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Jurisdiction for Plaintiffs’ claim forcosts and attorneys’ fees is based upon Rule 54, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and 52 U.S.C. § 10310(e).
11.

This court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1362, which provides

that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, brought by any
Indian tribe or band with a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary of the3Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 4 of 32

Interior, wherein the matter in controversy arises under the Constitution, laws, or treatiesof the United States.”
12.

The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, who resides in this

district.
13.

Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (e). Defendantresides in the State of North Dakota, and Defendant is a state official performing official
duties in Bismarck, North Dakota. Plaintiff Tribes and Individual Plaintiffs are locatedwithin the State of North Dakota.
PARTIES
Plaintiff - Spirit Lake Tribe (Mni Wakan Oyate)
14.

Plaintiff Spirit Lake Tribe - Mni Wakan Oyate is a federally recognized

Tribe with an enrollment of 7,559 members. 86 Fed. Reg. 7557.
15.

The Spirit Lake Tribe is located on the Spirit Lake Reservation. The Tribal

Headquarters are located at 816 3rd Ave. North, Fort Totten, ND 58335.
16.

The Spirit Lake Reservation is in east central North Dakota, and covers

approximately 405 square miles, primarily in Benson County and Eddy County, withparts extending into Nelson, Wells, and Ramsey Counties. The Spirit Lake Reservation
was established in 1867 through a treaty between the Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux Bands
and the United States. The Treaty forced the relocation of the Sisseton Wahpeton SiouxBands from a more expansive territory in present-day Minnesota and the Northern Plains
onto the Reservation with the Sisseton, Wahpeton and the Cuthead Bands of the4Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 5 of 32

Yanktonais, who had already been forced onto the Reservation. These Bands make up thepresent-day Spirit Lake Tribe.
17.

Approximately 3,459 Spirit Lake members live on the Spirit Lake

Reservation, with more living in surrounding areas. This includes a sizeable populationof eligible voters.
18.

HB 1504 places the Spirit Lake Reservation into Legislative District 15,

which is comprised of one single-member state senate district and a two-member at-large
state house districts.
Plaintiff - Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians
19.

Plaintiff Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians is a federally

recognized Tribe with an enrollment of more than 30,000 members. 86 Fed. Reg. 7557.
20.

Today, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians is located on the

Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation. Many Turtle Mountain citizens live on the
Reservation and in the surrounding areas, including on lands held in trust for the Tribeby the federal government outside the boundaries of the reservation. The Tribal
Headquarters are located at 4180 Highway 281, Belcourt, ND 58316.
21.

The Turtle Mountain Reservation covers 72 square-miles in north central

North Dakota, located entirely within Rolette County. It is one of the most densely
populated reservations in the United States, with a population of 5,113 according in 2020
according to the United States Census Bureau. This includes a sizeable population ofeligible voters. Substantial populations of tribal citizens also live in the areas surrounding
the Reservation, including Rolla, St. John, Dunseith, and Rolette.
5Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 6 of 32

22.

HB 1504 places the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation into Senate District

9 and House District 9A. Lands held in trust for the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa
Indians are located in House District 9B.
23.

A substantial population of Turtle Mountain citizens live in House Districts

9A and 9B.
Individual Voter Plaintiffs
24.

Plaintiffs also include individual Native American voters (“Individual

Plaintiffs”) who reside in the districts that violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
25.

Individual Plaintiffs’ votes are diluted in violation of Section 2 of the Voting

Rights Act because they are either: (a) cracked into districts where Native Americans
make up less than a majority of the voting age population and their voting power isoverwhelmed by a white bloc voting in opposition to their candidates of choice, as inDistrict 15; or (b) packed into a subdistrict with an excessively high number of Native
voters—well above what is necessary to afford them an equal opportunity to elect theirpreferred candidate—as in House District 9A.
26.

Plaintiff Wesley Davis is Native American and a citizen of the Turtle

Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians. Mr. Davis resides on the Turtle MountainReservation and within State Senate District 9 and House District 9A. Mr. Davis has lived
at his residence for 10 years, has lived on the Turtle Mountain Reservation for 30 years,
and is a regular voter in North Dakota elections. Mr. Davis intends to vote in 2022 andfuture elections.

6Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 7 of 32

27.

Plaintiff Zachary S. King is Native American and a citizen of the Turtle

Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians. Mr. King resides on the Turtle MountainReservation and within State Senate District 9 and House District 9A. Mr. King has lived
at this residence for 35 years and is a regular voter in North Dakota elections. Mr. King
intends to vote in 2022 and future elections.
28.

Plaintiff Collette Brown is Native American and a citizen of the Spirit Lake

Tribe. Ms. Brown resides on the Spirit Lake Reservation and within Legislative District
15. Ms. Brown has lived at this residence for 19 years, has resided on the Spirit Lake
Reservation for 43 years and is a regular voter in North Dakota elections. Ms. Brown
intends to vote in 2022 and future elections.
Defendant
29.

Defendant Alvin Jaeger is sued in his official capacity as Secretary of Stateof North Dakota. The North Dakota Secretary of State is the State’s supervisor of elections
and is responsible for “supervis[ing] the conduct of elections,” and “publish[ing] . . . a
map of all legislative districts.” N.D.C.C. §§ 16.1-01-01(1) & (2)(a). He is tasked with“maintain[ing] the central voter file,” which “must contain . . . the legislative district . . .
in which the [voter] resides.” N.D.C.C. §§ 16.1-02-01 & -12(6).
LEGAL BACKGROUND
30.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a), prohibits any“standard, practice, or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right ofany citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . . . .” 52 U.S.C. §10301(a). A violation of Section 2 is established if it is shown that “the political processes
7Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 8 of 32

leading to [a] nomination or election” in the jurisdiction “are not equally open toparticipation by [minority voters] in that its members have less opportunity than othermembers of the electorate to participate in the political process and to electrepresentatives of their choice.” Id. § 10301(b).
31.

The dilution of a racial or ethnic minority group’s voting strength “may becaused by the dispersal of [the minority population] into districts in which they constitutean ineffective minority of voters or from the concentration of [the minority population]
into districts where they constitute an excessive majority.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S.
30, 46 n.11 (1986).
32.

In Gingles, the Supreme Court identified three necessary preconditions(“the Gingles preconditions”) for a claim of vote dilution under Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act: (1) the minority group must be “sufficiently large and geographically compact
to constitute a majority in a single-member district”; (2) the minority group must be“politically cohesive”; and (3) the majority must vote “sufficiently as a bloc to enable it .
. . usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.” 478 U.S. at 50-51.
33.

After the preconditions are established, the statute directs courts to assess

whether, under the totality of the circumstances, members of the racial minority group
have less opportunity than other members of the electoral to participate in the politicalprocess and to elect representatives of their choice. 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b). The Court has
directed that the Senate Report on the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act be
consulted for its non-exhaustive factors that the court should consider in determining if,

8Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 9 of 32

in the totality of the circumstances in the jurisdiction, the operation of the electoral device
being challenged results in a violation of Section 2.
34.

The Senate Factors include: (1) the history of official voting-related

discrimination in the state or political subdivision; (2) the extent of which voting in theelections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized; (3) the extent to which
the state or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend toenhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group; (4) the exclusionof members of the minority group from candidate slating processes; (5) the extent towhich the minority group bears the effects of discrimination in areas such as education,
employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in thepolitical process; (6) the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns; and(7) the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public officein the jurisdiction.
35.

Nevertheless, “there is no requirement that any particular number offactors be proved, or that a majority of them point one way or the other.” S. Rep. No. 97417, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. (1982) at 29.
36.

Courts have found violations of Section 2 where district maps “pack”

minority voters into a district where they constitute a significant supermajority, diluting
their ability to elect a candidate of their choice in surrounding districts. See Boneshirt v.
Hazeltine, 461 F.3d 1011, 1018 (8th Cir. 2006).
37.

Likewise, courts have found Section 2 violations occur where district maps

“crack” compact minority populations between districts, thwarting their ability to elect a9Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 10 of 32

candidate of choice in a district encompassing the entire minority population. See Gingles,
478 U.S. at 46 n.11; See also Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997,1007 (1994).
FACTS
38.

All or part of five Indian reservations are within the boundaries of the Stateof North Dakota. This includes the entirety of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation,
where the MHA Nation is located, the Spirit Lake Reservation, where the Spirit Lake
Tribe is located, and the Turtle Mountain Reservation, where the Turtle Mountain Bandof Chippewa Indians is located, as well as northern portions of the Standing RockReservation, where the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is located, and the Lake Traverse
Reservation, where the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate is located. A map of the North Dakota
reservations is below.

https://www.indianaffairs.nd.gov/tribal-nations.
10Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 11 of 32

39.

According to the 2020 Census, North Dakota has a total population of

779,094, of whom 636,160 (81.7%) are non-Hispanic White, 55,727 (7.2%) are Native
American (alone or in combination), and 87,207 (11.2%) are members of other racial or
ethnic groups.
40.

According to the 2020 Census, North Dakota has a voting-age populationof 596,093, of whom 503,153 (84.4%) are non-Hispanic White, 35,031 (5.9%) are Native
American (alone or in combination), and 57,909 (9.7%) are members of other racial or
ethnic groups.
41.

The North Dakota legislature commenced its most recent redistricting

process following the 2020 U.S. Census in August 2021. Redistricting was driven by theNorth Dakota Legislative Council Redistricting Committee (the “Redistricting
Committee”), a subcommittee of the legislature comprised of eight state house
representatives, including the chairman, and eight state senators, including the vicechairman. H.B. 1397, 67th Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.D. 2021).
42.

The Redistricting Committee was charged with developing a legislative

redistricting plan to submit to the legislative assembly and implemented in time for use
in the 2022 primary election. Id. Throughout the process, the Redistricting Committee
held hearings in which it received testimony from the public and state legislators
regarding legislative plans.
43.

Many of the requests of tribal leaders and native organizations wereignored in the process, including requests to hold Redistricting Committee meetings onor near reservations to allow tribal members to participate.
11

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 12 of 32

44.

Chairman Douglas Yankton of the Spirit Lake Tribe and other official

representatives of the Spirit Lake Tribe, including Gaming Commission Executive
Director Collette Brown (who is also an Individual Plaintiff), provided testimony to theRedistricting Committee on August 26, 2021, 1 September 15, 2021, 2 and September 29,
2021, 3 stating the Spirit Lake Tribe’s official position that the Spirit Lake Reservation
should be placed into a single state house subdistrict that would improve tribal citizens’
representation in the State Legislature.
45.

At no point did the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians nor its

representatives request that the Tribe’s reservation be placed into a single-member statehouse subdistrict.
46.

On September 29, 2021, the Redistricting Committee adopted its draft final

statewide legislative plan and for the first time indicated the Committee’s intent to split

1 Aug. 26 Meeting of the Redistricting Committee, 2021 Leg., 67th Sess. (N.D. Aug. 26, 2021),

https://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/67-2021/interim/23-5024-03000-meetingminutes.pdf (minutes); Testimony of Collette Brown at Aug. 26 Meeting of the Redistricting
Committee,
2021
Leg.,
67th
Sess.
(N.D.
Aug.
26,
2021),
https://www.legis.nd.gov/files/committees/67-2021/23_5024_03000appendixh.pdf.
2 Sep. 15 Meeting of the Redistricting Committee, 2021 Leg., 67th Sess. (N.D. Sep. 15, 2021),
https://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/67-2021/interim/23-5061-03000-meetingminutes.pdf (minutes); Testimony of Collette Brown at the Sep. 15 Meeting of the Redistricting
Committee,
2021
Leg.,
67th
Sess.
(N.D.
Sep.
15,
2021),
https://www.legis.nd.gov/files/committees/67-2021/23_5061_03000appendixd.pdf(testimony).
3 Sep. 28-29 Meeting of the Redistricting Committee, 2021 Leg., 67th Sess. (N.D. Sep. 28-29,2021), https://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/67-2021/interim/23-5063-03000-meetingminutes.pdf (minutes); Testimony of Douglas Yankton at the Sep. 28-29 Meeting of theRedistricting Committee, 2021 Leg., 67th Sess. (N.D. Sep. 28-29, 2021),
https://www.legis.nd.gov/files/committees/67-2021/23_5063_03000appendixc.pdf(testimony).
12

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 13 of 32

District 9 into two state house subdistricts. The final draft plan included 47 statelegislative districts, with two divided into single-member state house subdistricts,
Districts 4 and 9.
47.

District 9, which comprises the boundaries of Senate District 9 (SD 9), is

divided into single-member House Districts: 9A (HD 9A) and 9B (HD 9B). The Turtle
Mountain Indian Reservation is located entirely in HD 9A, while some of the Tribe’s trust
land and members are located in HD 9B.
48.

The plan did not establish a single-member state house district

encompassing the Spirit Lake Reservation. Instead, the Spirit Lake Reservation was
located in District 15, which encompasses a single-member state senate district and a twomember at-large state house district.
49.

After reviewing the Redistricting Committee’s final proposed plan, officials

from the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians determinedthat the best way to prevent the votes of citizens of the Tribal Nations from being diluted
and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act would be for the Legislature toadopt a joint legislative district that includes both the Spirit Lake Tribe and the Turtle
Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians.
50.

On November 1, 2021, Spirit Lake Chairman Yankton and Turtle Mountain

Chairman Azure issued a joint letter to Governor Doug Burgum, House Speaker Kim
Koppelman, House Majority Leader Chet Pollert, House Minority Leader Joshua
Boschee, Senate Majority Leader Rich Wardner, and Senate Minority Leader Joan
Heckman detailing the Tribal Nations’ concerns about the proposed map and indicating
13

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 14 of 32

the Tribal Nations’ request to be placed into a single legislative district encompassing
both Tribes’ reservations. See Exhibit 1.
51.

The letter also put each of these officials on notice that the proposed District

9, which includes HD 9A and HD 9B, as they are currently drawn, would violate the
Voting Rights Act and provided an analysis of racially polarized voting in North Dakota.
52.

Along with the letter, the Chairmen delivered a proposed draft of a district

encompassing their two Tribal Nations as well as a draft map.
53.

On November 8, 2021, the Redistricting Committee held a hearing during

the special legislative session to finalize its plan.
54.

At that meeting on November 8, 2021, Senator Richard Marcellais who

represents SD 9 proposed an amendment to the Committee’s final legislative map, which
would have created a joint legislative district containing the Turtle Mountain Reservationand Spirit Lake Reservation.
55.

During the meeting, the committee heard testimony from Chairman Azure,

Chairman Yankton, Senator Marcellais, and Representative Marvin Nelson of District 9
regarding the proposed amendment. Both Chairmen again indicated their Tribal Nations’position that the tribes’ reservations should be placed into the same district.
56.

The Committee failed to adopt the amendment, as did the full Senate.

Rather, on November 10, 2021, the North Dakota State Legislature passed HB 1504.
Governor Burgum signed the bill into law the following day.

14

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 15 of 32

Native Americans’ Voting Strength Is Diluted by the Configuration of Districts 9A, 9B,
and 1557.

HB 1504 packs Native American voters in District 9A, while cracking other

Native American voters in Districts 9B and 15.
58.

House District 9A has a Native Voting-Age Population of 79.79 percent andis centered in Rolette.
59.

House District 9B has a Native American Voting-Age Population of 32.23

percent, cracking apart Native American populations near St. John and Turtle Mountain
Trust lands from those in District 9A.
60.

Spirit Lake’s Native American population is submerged into District 15,

which has a Native American Voting-Age Population of 23.08 percent.
Gingles Prong 1: Native American Voters Form a Geographically Compact Majority inan Alternative District with Two State House Seats
61.

Native Americans living on and around the Spirit Lake Reservation andTurtle Mountain Reservation are sufficiently numerous and geographically compact toconstitute a majority in an undivided legislative district.
62.

In that proposed district, Native American voters from Turtle Mountainand Spirit Lake reservations would be combined in a single district with a Native
American Voting-Age Population of 69.1 percent. Under this configuration, Native
American voters in the region would have the opportunity to elect their candidates ofchoice to both at-large state house seats as well as the senate.
63.

The Native American population on and around the Turtle Mountain andSpirit Lake reservations is geographically compact.
15

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 16 of 32

64.

The Spirit Lake and Turtle Mountain reservations are a mere 55 miles

apart—a roughly one-hour drive between the reservations.
65.

The below map shows the Spirit Lake reservation and Turtle Mountainreservation (including adjacent trust lands) outlined in black lines, with the more densely
populated Native American areas shown in blue.

66.

The Tribes’ proposed district would be far more compact than the enacted

District 14, which stretches over 150 miles—a nearly three hour drive—from Wolford in
Pierce County to Alkaline Lake in Kidder County.

16

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 17 of 32

Gingles Prong 2: Voting in the Region is Racially Polarized, with Native American
Voters Demonstrating Political Cohesion
67.

Native American voters in North Dakota, including those living on andaround the Spirit Lake Reservation and Turtle Mountain Reservation, vote cohesively
and overwhelmingly support the same candidates.
68.

For example, Rolette County precinct 09-03 has a Native American Voting-Age Population of 93.7 percent, and in the 2020 presidential election candidate Joe Biden
carried the precinct by a margin of 87.2 percent to 11.6 percent.
69.

Benson County precinct 23-02 has a Native American Voting-Age

Population of 91.8 percent, and Biden carried it by a margin of 78.6 percent to 19.6
percent.
Gingles Prong 3: White Bloc Voting Usually Defeats Native American Preferred
Candidates
70.

In the absence of Section 2 compliant districts, white bloc voting in theregion usually defeats the candidate of choice of Native American voters.
71.

Republican candidates usually defeat the Native American-preferred

Democratic candidates in reconstituted elections in Districts 9B and 15.
72.

On the other hand, the Native American candidate of choice prevails byhigh margins in District 9A. In the 2020 presidential election, Native American candidateof choice Biden received 72.7 percent of the vote, compared to 37.0 percent in District 9B
and 32.9 percent in District 15. In the 2020 gubernatorial election, Native American
candidate of choice Lenz received 64.3 percent of the vote in District 9A, compared to 29.7
percent in District 9B and 25.8 percent in District 15.
17

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 18 of 32

The Totality of Circumstances Demonstrates that Native American Voters Have Less
Opportunity than Other Members of the Electorate to Participate in the Electoral
Process and Elect Representatives of Their Choice73.

A review of the totality of the circumstances reveals that Native American

voters in North Dakota have less opportunity than other members of the electorate toparticipate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. See 52 U.S.C.
§ 10301(b).
Exclusion of Native Americans from the 2021 Redistricting Process
74.

The North Dakota Legislature, including the Redistricting Committee,

failed to actively and effectively engage tribal citizens in the 2021 Redistricting process.
75.

The Redistricting Committee failed to hold a single committee hearing on

tribal lands, despite repeated requests from the Tribal Nations within North Dakota’s
borders to do so. Instead, all public hearings were held at substantial distances from tribal
lands, making attendance and testimony impossible for most tribal citizens, andespecially the many tribal citizens without reliable private transportation.
76.

Even when official representatives of the Tribal Nations were able to attend

hearings of the Redistricting Committee, they were met with hostility by some legislators.
77.

For example, at a final meeting of the Redistricting Committee on

November 8, Turtle Mountain Chairman Azure and Spirit Lake Chairman Yankton
testified before the Committee. The Chairman requested their respective communities ofinterest be included together in a single legislative district.
78.

Despite the Tribal leaders’ requests, legislators repeatedly suggested thatthey better understood the Tribal Nations’ concerns than the Tribes’ own Chairmen.
18Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 19 of 32

79.

With the Chairmen still at the meeting, a Representative and member of theRedistricting Committee stated of the Chairmen’s request, “I feel . . . that if we had comeup with this plan, it would look we were trying to pack them all into one district and to
marginalize them and so it’s hard for me to listen to them ask to be marginalized, in myopinion.” 4 Other legislators made similar comments.
80.

Representative Terry Jones made statements at a Tribal and State Relations

Committee meeting with the Spirit Lake Tribe on September 1, 2021 that sought todiscourage Tribes from exercising their right to request single-member house districts by
his equating the request to “the definition of racism” because, in his view, the request for
single-member districts means “that in order for [him] to be able to properly represent
them [tribal members] that [his] skin had to be brown.” 581.

The legislators’ comments are illustrative of the atmosphere of hostility

toward the concerns of Tribal Nations during the 2021 redistricting process.
Discrimination in Voting Against Native Americans
82.

As this Court has repeatedly recognized, North Dakota has a long historyof both denying Native Americans the right to vote and diluting Native voting strength.
See, e.g., Spirit Lake Tribe v. Benson Cnty., No. 2:10-cv-095, 2010 WL 4226614, at *3 (D.N.D.
2010); Consent Judgment and Decree, United States v. Benson Cnty., Civ. A. No. A2-00-30

4 Nov. 8 Hearing of the Joint Redistricting Committee, 67th Leg., 1st Spec. Sess. 3:40:29 (N.D.

Nov.
8,2021),
https://video.legis.nd.gov/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20211108/-1/22649.
5 Sep. 1 Meeting of the Redistricting Committee, 2021 Leg., 67th Sess. 10:38:07 (N.D. Sep. 1,2021),
https://video.legis.nd.gov/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20210901/1/21581.
19

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 20 of 32(D.N.D. Mar. 10, 2000); see also State ex rel. Tompton v. Denoyer, 72 N.W. 1014, 1019 (N.D.
1897).
83.

Until 1922, North Dakota explicitly barred most Native Americans fromvoting. Until 1897, Native Americans were statutorily denied the right to vote in North
Dakota “unless they had entirely abandoned their tribal relations, and were in no manner
subject to the authority of any Indian chief or Indian agent.” Denoyer, 72 N.W. at 1019.
After that law was struck down by the North Dakota Supreme Court as violating the state
constitution, the legislature amended the Constitution to allow only “[c]ivilized personsof Indian descent” who “severed their tribal relations two years next preceding” anelection to vote. N.D. Const., art. V § 121 (1898). Native Americans were denied the rightto vote unless they could show that they “live[d] just the same as white people.” Swift v.
Leach, 178 N.W. 437, 438 (N.D. 1920).
84.

The North Dakota Constitution of 1898 also established a literacy test as aqualification for voting. N.D. Const. art. II, §§ 121, 127 (ratified by vote on Nov. 8, 1898).
This practice was commonly used to disenfranchise minority voters and is prohibited by
the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 52 U.S.C. § 10303; see also South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383
U.S. 301, 312, 316 (1966) (discussing the discriminatory use of literacy tests and the Voting
Rights Act’s ban on such tests).
85.

Discrimination against Native American voters continues in North Dakota

today. Over the past three decades, the State has continued to enact laws and adopt
practices that discriminate against eligible Native voters.

20

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 21 of 32

86.

In 2000, the Justice Department filed an action against Benson County,

North Dakota alleging that the county’s at-large elections system for electing county
commissioners denied Native American voters the opportunity to participate
meaningfully in the political process. See Consent Judgment at Preamble, Benson Cnty.,
Civ. A. No. A1-00-30. The parties entered into a consent decree in which Benson County
admitted that its at-large system discriminated against Native American voters. The
County agreed to adopt a five-district election system, with two majority Native
American districts. Id.¶ 6, 15.
87.

In 2010, the Spirit Lake Tribe sued Benson County to prevent the removalof a polling place on the reservation, some 100 years after the Tribe first sued to establish
the reservation polling place. In considering the challenge, this Court recognized “[t]hehistoric pattern of discrimination suffered by members of the Spirit Lake [Tribe],”andfound that the removal of the Spirit Lake polling pace likely violated Section 2 of the
VRA. Spirit Lake Tribe, 2010 WL 4226614, at *3. The polling place was then reestablishedon the reservation. Id. at *3.
88.

Beginning in 2013, the North Dakota legislature adopted a series of

discriminatory voter identification laws targeting Native Americans.
89.

In both 2013 and 2014, the North Dakota legislature amended its voter ID

law to restrict the acceptable forms of identification and eliminate certain fail-safe
mechanisms for voters who lacked a qualifying ID. Specifically, the law required votersto present identification containing the voter’s name, date of birth, and residential street
address. See H.B. 1332, 63rd Leg. Assembly; Reg. Sess. § 5 (2013); Order Granting Motion
21

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 22 of 32

for Preliminary Injunction at *2-3, Brakebill v. Jaeger, No. 1:16-cv-008, 2016 WL 7118548,(D.N.D. Aug. 1, 2016). It also eliminated alternative options that had historically been
available for voters without ID. Id. The North Dakota Legislature passed these
discriminatory voter ID laws even after repeated warnings that the identification andresidential address requirements would lead to the disenfranchisement of Native
Americans.
90.

At the time, many Native American voters living on reservations had notbeen assigned residential addresses. And though the law purported to include tribal
identification cards as qualifying IDs, most tribal IDs included a P.O. Box rather than thetribal citizen’s non-existent residential address. As such, the residential address
requirement disproportionately affected Native American voters and prevented themfrom relying on their tribal IDs for voting. Brakebill, No. 1:16-cv-008, 2016 WL 7118548, at*4.
91.

In 2016, this Court found that the amended voter ID law discriminatedagainst Native Americans.
92.

Specifically, it found that Native Americans “face substantial anddisproportionate burdens in obtaining each form of ID deemed acceptable under the[2013] law,” and that eligible Native voters had been disenfranchised because of it.
Brakebill, No. 1:16-cv-008, 2016 WL 7118548, at *9, 16-17.
93.

Concluding that the Native American plaintiffs were likely to succeed on achallenge to the law under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
this Court enjoined the Secretary of State from enforcing the law in the November 201622

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 23 of 32

Election without a fail-safe provision for voters who lack a qualifying ID. Brakebill, No.
1:16-cv-008, 2016 WL 7118548, at *22. The state did not appeal that decision.
94.

In 2017, the North Dakota Legislature again amended the State’s voter

identification law to eliminate the fail-safe provision for voters who lack a qualifying ID
listing their residential street address.
95.

After the Spirit Lake Tribe, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and various

individual eligible Native American voters challenged the law again in federal court as
discriminating against Native voters, the State agreed to enter into a consent decree.
Under the consent decree, the Secretary of State must recognize tribal IDs as valid voter
identification and ensure that Native American voters retain an effective fail-safe voting
option, including by ensuring that otherwise eligible voters who lack an ID listing theirresidential address are provided with their address and corresponding documentation
sufficient to allow them to vote. Order, Consent Decree, and Judgment, Spirit Lake Tribev. Jaeger, No. 1:18-cv-00222-DLH-CRH (D.N.D. Apr. 27, 2020).
Historic Discrimination Against Native Americans in Other Areas
96.

Native Americans in North Dakota face discrimination in other arenas,

which exacerbates the barriers to their effective participation in the political process.
97.

Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the United States

carried out official federal policy targeted at forcibly assimilating Native Americans into
European-American culture. See Bear Lodge Multiple Use Ass’n v. Babbit, 175 F.3d 814, 817(10th Cir. 1999). Forced assimilation included suppression and attempted destruction ofIndigenous religions, languages, and culture.
23

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 24 of 32

98.

Assimilationist policies commonly brought violence in the Northern Plains.

“In 1890 for example, the United States Cavalry shot and killed 300 unarmed Sioux[Lakota] men, women and children en route to an Indian religious ceremony called theGhost Dance[.]” Bear Lodge Multiple Use Ass’n, 175 F.3d at 817.
99.

Native Americans in North Dakota were a direct target of these

discriminatory policies and practices.
100.

Christian and government boarding schools were established throughout

North Dakota beginning in the late nineteenth century and persisting through the midtwentieth century. Native American children were removed from their families and tribes
and sent to the boarding schools to be “civilized” and indoctrinated into Christianity. Seee.g. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, Extracts from the Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior for
the Fiscal Year, 192754 (1927); Native American Rights Fund, Let All That Is Indian Within
You Die!, 38(2) NARF L. Rev. 1 (2013). These children routinely suffered physical andemotional abuse and neglect. At the same time, they were banned from speaking
Indigenous languages and practicing their cultures and religions.
101.

The boarding school policy was incredibly harmful and its effects,

including disparities in education and literacy between Native Americans and nonNative Americans, have persisted in North Dakota long after its official end. See Lewis
Merriam, Tech. Dir. for Inst. for Gov’t Research, The Problem of Indian Administration,
Report of a Survey made at the request of Hubert Work, Secretary of the Interior and submitted tohim Feb. 21, 1928; Native American Rights Fund, Let All That Is Indian Within You Die!,38(2) NARF L. Rev. 1 (2013).
24

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 25 of 32

102.

Native children attending state public schools in the mid-twentieth century

also faced significant discrimination, including being subjected to humiliatingstereotypes and language discrimination. See Indian Education: A National Tragedy – A
National Challenge, Special Subcomm. on Indian Educ., 91st Cong., S.R. No. 91-501 (1969).
Native students often reported feeling powerless, experiencing depression, and generally
feeling alienated form their own cultures. Dropout rates among Native children
attending public schools were higher than those for non-native children, while readinglevels were lower. At the same time, Native people were generally prevented fromserving on school boards. Id. at 23-31. Higher dropout rates amongst Native students
persisted throughout the end of the twentieth century. Educational Condition, N.D. Dep’t
of

Pub.

Education,

https://web.archive.org/web/20151225031658/https://www.nd.gov/dpi/SchoolStaff/IME/Programs_Initiatives/IndianEd/resources/EducationalCondition/.
103.

Native Americans in North Dakota, including the Plaintiff Tribes, were also

subjected to discriminatory land allotment policies. Throughout the early-to mid-1900’s,
millions of acres of tribal land were transferred to private ownership, largely by nonIndians. These allotment policies dramatically reduced the land bases for many tribes,
including those in North Dakota. These policies also created a confusing “checkerboard”
of state, tribal, and federal jurisdiction, leading to reduced and inconsistent enforcementof criminal laws by non-tribal law enforcement agencies. See Keepseagle v. Vilsack, 118 F.
Supp. 3d. 98 (D.D.C. 2015), appeal denied 2015 WL 9310099 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

25

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 26 of 32

104.

The State of North Dakota has played an active role in discrimination

against Native Americans since its inception.
105.

Significantly, the State, through the North Dakota Indian Affairs

Commission, embraced the discriminatory and harmful forced assimilation andrelocation policies of the federal government.
106.

Historic discrimination has hindered the ability of the Native American

population in North Dakota to participate effectively in the political process.
Modern Effects of Discrimination
107.

Native Americans in North Dakota continue bear the effects of the state andfederal government’s discriminatory policies and practices in income and poverty,
education, employment, and health, which hinders their ability to participate effectively
in the political process.
108.

Native Americans in North Dakota are three times more likely than thegeneral population of North Dakota and nearly four times more likely than are whites inthe state to live in poverty. According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey
Estimates, the poverty rate for Native Americans in North Dakota is 32.2 percent (nearly
1 in 3), compared 10.7 percent for the state’s total population and only 8.2 percent
amongst North Dakotans who are white alone.
109.

Approximately half of all Native American children in North Dakota livein poverty—a rate more than five times higher than any other racial group in the state.
North Dakota Interagency Council on Homelessness, Housing the Homeless: North Dakota’s

26

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 27 of 32

10-Year

Plan

to

End

Long-Term

Homelessnessii(October2018),

https://www.ndhfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/HomelessPlan2018.pdf.
110.

Native Americans in North Dakota face a higher rate of homelessness thanany other racial group in the state. In 2017, the North Dakota Interagency Council on
Homelessness estimated that Native Americans account for at least 21 percent of North
Dakota’s homeless population, despite making up only 5 percent of the state’s
population. Id at 17.
111.

This 2017 study likely underestimated the actual number of Native

Americans who are effectively homeless because it failed to account for the many
individuals who live temporarily with family and other tribal members. Id. at 17.
112.

Native Americans in North Dakota also fare worse than white North

Dakotans in education. Native Americans over the age of 25 are two and a half times as
likely as whites to lack a high school diploma. According to the 2019 American
Community Survey, approximately 15 percent of Native Americans lack a high school
diploma, compared to 6 percent of whites.
113.

Native American students in North Dakota are 4.2 times more likely thanwhite students to be suspended from school. At the same time, white students are 4.3
times more likely than Native students to be enrolled in Advanced Placement classes.
ProPublica,

Miseducation:

North

Dakota,https://projects.propublica.org/miseducation/state/ND (last accessed Sep. 16, 2021).
114.

Native Americans in North Dakota also suffer worse health outcomes thanthe State’s overall population, on average. For example, Native Americans report being27

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 28 of 32

in poor or fair health at a rate almost double that of North Dakota’s total population.
North Dakota Dep’t of Health, North Dakota American Indian Health Profile, Table 21 (Jul.
18,2014),

http://www.ndhealth.gov/HealthData/CommunityHealthProfiles/American%20Indi
an%20Community%20Profile.pdf. Similarly, Native people in North Dakota aged 18-64
are more than twice as likely as the overall population to have a disability. Id. at Table 8.
The infant death rate and child and adolescent death rate amongst Native Americans inNorth Dakota is approximately 2.5 times that of the State’s total population. Id. at Table
13.
115.

Native Americans in North Dakota are also overrepresented in the state’s

prison and jail population. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, Native Americans inNorth Dakota are incarcerated at a rate 8 times that of the state’s white population. Prison
Policy Initiative, North Dakota Profile, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/ND.html(last accessed Sep. 16, 2021).
116.

These and other socioeconomic factors related to the history of

discrimination compound the political disempowerment of Native Americans in North
Dakota caused by the discriminatory legislative districting scheme.
Racially Polarized Voting and the Limited Success of Native American Candidates
117.

Voting in North Dakota is racially polarized between white and Native

voters.
118.

In the 2016 state-wide U.S. House of Representatives contest, Native

American voters backed Native American candidate Chase Iron Eyes with 87 percent of28

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 29 of 32

the vote, compared to 13 percent for Kevin Cramer. White voters, however, supported
Cramer with 76 percent and Iron Eyes at 24 percent.
119.

In the 2016 state-wide Public Service Commissioner race, the Native

American vote backed Native American candidate Hunte Beaubrun 78 percent to 15
percent for Julie Fedorchak. However, white voters preferred Fedorchak with 70 percentof the vote, compared to only 21 percent of the vote in support of Hunte Beaubrun.
120.

In the 2016 state-wide Insurance Commissioner contests, Native American

candidate Ruth Buffalo received 87 percent of the Native American vote, while Jon
Godfread received approximately 13 percent of the Native American vote. The white votefavored Godfread with 72 percent of the vote, compared to 28 percent for Buffalo.
121.

Native Americans have had little success in being elected to state office inNorth Dakota outside of the previously Native American-majority District 9.
122.

Upon information and belief, there has never been a Native American

statewide elected official.
123.

HB1504 results in a lack of proportionality for Native American voters; thenumber of state house and senate districts in which they can election their candidate of
choice is lower than their share of the state’s voting age population.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
COUNT 1
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301
124.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations above as if fully set forth

herein.
29

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 30 of 32

125.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits the enforcement of any

qualification or prerequisite to voting or any standard, practice, or procedure that resultsin the denial or abridgement of the right of any U.S. citizen to vote on account of race,color in a language minority group. 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a).
126.

Native American voters in northeastern North Dakota are “cracked” inDistrict 9B and District 15 where they constitute a minority of the voting age population.
The remaining Native American population is packed into District 9A, where Native
Americans constitute a supermajority of the voting age population.
127.

The packing and cracking of Native American voters in Districts 9 and 15

dilutes the voting strength of Native voters, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act.
128.

An alternative district can be drawn in which Native American votersconstitute a geographically compact majority of eligible voters that will reliably electNative Americans’ preferred candidates to two at-large state house seats and one state
senate seat.
129.

Voting in northeastern North Dakota is racially polarized, Native voters arepolitically cohesive, and white bloc voters usually defeats Native voters’ preferredcandidates.
130.

Under the totality of the circumstances the current State Legislative plan

denies Native voters an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and toelect their candidates of choice, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C.
§ 10301.
30

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 31 of 32

131.

Absent relief from this Court, Defendants will continue to dilute the votesof the individual Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Tribes in violation of Section
2 of the VRA.
REQUESTED RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask that this Court:A.

Declare that HB 1504 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act;

B.

Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from administering,

enforcing, preparing for, or in any way permitting the nomination or election of membersof the North Dakota Legislature from unlawful districts;
C.

Set a reasonable deadline for the legislature to enact a redistricting plan that

does not dilute, cancel out, or minimize the voting strength of Native American voters;
D.

If the legislature fails to enact a valid redistricting plan before the Court’s

deadline, order a new redistricting plan that does not dilute, cancel out, or minimize thevoting strength of Native American voters;
E.

Award Plaintiffs their costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys' fees

incurred in bringing this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 52 U.S.C. § 10310(e);and,F.

Grant such other relief as the Court deems proper.

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of February, 2022.

31

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 32 of 32/s/ Michael S. Carter
Michael S. Carter
OK No. 31961
carter@narf.org
Matthew Campbell
NM No. 138207, CO No. 40808
mcampbell@narf.org
NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
1506 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80301
Telephone: (303) 447-8760 (main)
Fax: (303) 443-7776
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Mark P. Gaber
DC Bar No. 988077
mgaber@campaignlegal.org
Molly E. Danahy*
DC Bar No. 1643411
mdanahy@campaignlegal.org
CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER
1101 14th St. NW, Ste. 400
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 736-2200 (main)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Bryan Sells*
GA No. 635562
bryan@bryansellslaw.com
THE LAW OFFICE OF BRYAN L.
SELLS, LLC
Post Office Box 5493
Atlanta, GA 31107-0493
Telephone: (404) 480-4212 (voice and fax)
Attorney for Plaintiffs/s/ Timothy Q. Purdon
Timothy Q. Purdon
ND No. 05392
TPurdon@RobinsKaplan.com
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
1207 West Divide Avenue, Suite 200
Bismarck, ND 58501
Telephone: (701) 255-3000
Fax: (612) 339-4181
Attorney for Plaintiff Spirit Lake Nation* pro hac vice to be submitted32

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1-2 Filed 02/07/22 Page 1 of 7

Exhibit 1

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1-2 Filed 02/07/22 Page 2 of 7

November 1, 2021
The Honorable Doug Burgum
Governor of the State of North Dakota
600 East Boulevard Ave.
Bismarck, ND 58505

The Honorable Joshua Boschee
Minority Leader
North Dakota House of Representatives
600 East Boulevard Ave.
Bismarck, ND 58505

The Honorable Kim Koppelman
Speaker
North Dakota House of Representatives
600 East Boulevard Ave.
Bismarck, ND 58505

The Honorable Rich Wardner
Majority Leader
North Dakota State Senate
600 East Boulevard Ave.
Bismarck, ND 58505

The Honorable Chet Pollert
Majority Leader
North Dakota House of Representatives
600 East Boulevard Ave.
Bismarck, ND 58505

The Honorable Joan Heckaman
Minority Leader
North Dakota State Senate
600 East Boulevard Ave.
Bismarck, ND 58505

Dear Governor Burgum, Speaker Koppelman, and Leaders Pollert, Boschee, Wardner and Heckaman:
On behalf of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians (“Turtle Mountain”) and the Spirit Lake
Nation (“Spirit Lake”), we write to express concerns with the proposed legislative map to be considered
for approval by the State Legislature on November 8, and to respectfully request that our Tribal Nations
be incorporated into the same legislative district.
Throughout the redistricting process, the Tribes of North Dakota made numerous requests to theLegislature’s Redistricting Committee to hold redistricting hearings on and near reservations to allow
tribal members an opportunity to be heard on how their state legislative representation will be guided forthe next ten years. Those requests fell on deaf ears. Many of our tribal members lack the means to travel
to Bismarck and were therefore shut out of the redistricting process. Also concerning was the Redistricting
Committee’s position that the Tribal and State Relations Committee could report back to it if any
redistricting comments happened to be brought up during the Tribal and State Relations Committee
meetings. That approach was wholly inadequate. Despite repeated requests, the only outreach from theCase 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1-2 Filed 02/07/22 Page 3 of 7

Redistricting Committee was the e-mailing of a hearing notice to the Tribes with one day’s notice. Of
course, given the short notice, not all of the Tribes were able to make it to Bismarck to attend the hearing.
Indeed, we as tribal leaders are governing in the middle of a pandemic with limited resources, and so one
day’s notice is far from sufficient.
At that redistricting hearing, representatives from the Spirit Lake Nation, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, andThree Affiliated Tribes advocated for the creation of legislative subdistricts to improve theirrepresentation. Of these requests, only a subdistrict for the Three Affiliated Tribes reservation area wasapproved by the Redistricting Committee. The Committee, however, also decided to create subdistricts in
the Turtle Mountain reservation area, even though no subdistricts were ever requested by Turtle Mountainto the Redistricting Committee.
As a result of the poor outreach to our Tribal Nations, despite our repeated requests, the Redistricting
Committee’s proposed District 9, containing the Turtle Mountain reservation, is illegally drawn and webelieve will be struck down in court if it is adopted by the State Legislature. To remedy this situation, andto also allow the members of Turtle Mountain and Spirit Lake to be able to elect the representatives of
their choice in accordance with federal law, we have developed a proposed district containing the Turtle
Mountain and Spirit Lake reservations. (Attached as Figure 1).
Given that our Tribal communities together would be sufficiently large and geographically compact toform a majority-minority district, and given the racially polarized voting that exists when comparing ourcommunities to the surrounding areas, our proposed district satisfies the Voting Rights Act, and would
negate the need for a subdistrict. To illustrate, the below charts show the differences between Native
American and non-Native American voting patterns in 2016 and 2020 state-wide elections for the
precincts within the district we have proposed. Our Tribal communities have voted cohesively in favor ofclearly identified Native American preferred candidates. On the other hand, the non-Native American
voters have, without exception, overwhelmingly voted against the Native American candidate of choice.

2Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1-2 Filed 02/07/22 Page 4 of 7

The disparity is even more severe when Native American candidates have run for office. In the 2016
election for the United States House of Representatives, a Native American candidate, Chase Iron Eyes,
was preferred by an estimated 98 percent of Native American voters, but received only 21 percent of thevote from white voters. The vast majority of white voters rallied behind the eventual winner of the race,
Kevin Cramer, who received only an estimated 2 percent of the Native American vote. A similar pattern
is visible in the 2016 race for Insurance Commissioner, where an estimated 98 percent of Native American
voters cast a ballot in favor of the Native American candidate, Ruth Buffalo, while being favored by only
28 percent of white voters.
Not only will adopting the district proposed by our Tribes allow the State of North Dakota to forgo costly
litigation (which would likely result in the Redistricting Committee’s map being overturned anyway), theproposed district can also be incorporated into the overall state-wide redistricting map very easily, withminimal impacts to the districts proposed by the Redistricting Committee for the rest of the state. We havetaken the additional step of drawing a full state-wide map that incorporates our proposed district.
(Attached as Figure 2). To illustrate this minimal impact, we have additionally provided a map that shows
the lines of a proposed state-wide map that incorporates our proposed district, overlaid with the lines of
the Redistricting Committee’s proposed map. (Attached as Figure 3). As you can see, incorporation of
our proposed district only creates small changes to the other districts proposed by the Redistricting
Committee, and only in the northeast corner of the state.
We respectfully bring this request forward, not only as the leaders of sovereign Tribal Nations, but as
fellow citizens of the State of North Dakota. All citizens deserve to have their voices heard and to betreated fairly and equally under the law. Our proposed district accomplishes this, which benefits our
Tribes as well as the State of North Dakota and all of its citizens. We appreciate your thorough attention
to this matter.

Sincerely,3Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1-2 Filed 02/07/22 Page 5 of 7

Figure 1 – Proposed District Including Spirit Lake and Turtle Mountain Reservations

District Population Deviation %Deviation 18+ Native American
Population
9
17,341
765
4.62%
7,887

4

% 18+Native
American Population
69.06%

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1-2 Filed 02/07/22 Page 6 of 7

Figure 2 – Proposed District as Incorporated Into State-Wide District Map

5

Case 3:22-cv-00022-PDW-ARS Document 1-2 Filed 02/07/22 Page 7 of 7

Figure 3 – Our Proposed District as Incorporated into State-Wide Map (Dark Brown Lines),
Overlaid with and the Redistricting Committee’s Map (Green Lines)

6