Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 1

Fff*ffiÐ

TN TFIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DTVISION

jAN 1 3 2012
&Ç"

CHRIS BROOKS, FRANCIS RENCOUNTRE, GLORLq. RED EAGLE, SHARON CONDEN, JACQUELINE GARNIER, JENNIFER RED OWL, EDWINA WESTON, MICI{ELLE WESTON, MONETTE TWO EAGLE, MARK A. MESTETH, STACY TWO LANCE, HARRY BROWN, ELEANOR WESTON, DAWN BLACK BULL, CLARICE MESTETH, DONOVAN L. STEELE, EILEEN JANIS, LEONA LITTLE HAWK, EVAN RENCOI.JNTRE, CECIL LITTLE IIAWK, SR., LINDA RED CLOUD, LORETTA LITTLE FIAWK, FAITH TWO EAGLE, EDMOND MESTETH, and ELMER KILLS BACK, JR.
Plaintiffs,
v.
JASON GANT, in his official capacity as SOUTH DAKOTA SECRETARY OF STATE, STIANNON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, FALL RIVER COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, STIANNON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, FALL RTVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, JOE FALKENBUERG, ANNE CASSENS, MICFIAEL P. ORTNE& DEB RUSSELL, and JOE ALLEN in their official capacity as members ofthe County Board of Commissioners for Fall River County, South Dakota, BRYAN J. KEHN, DELORIS T{AGMAN, EUGENIO B. WHITE T{AWK, WENDELL YELLOW BULL, and LYLA HUTCHISON in their official capacity as members of the County Board of Commissioners for Shannon County, South Dakota" SUE GANJE, in her offrcial capacity as the County Auditor for Shannon and Fall River Counties, and JAMES SWORD, in his offrcial capacity as Attomey for Shannon and Fall River
Counties,
Defendants-

þ- civ.No. {00 t

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 2

COMPLAINT

NATT]RE OF TIIE CASE

l.

This action is initiated by enrolled members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and

qualified voters of the State of South Dakota, pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965,

as amended, and other federal and South Dakota authority as specified below. At issue is

the action of Defendants in failing to establish polling stations that are open for a six (6)

week period at locations within Shannon County which lies wholly within the boundaries

of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. This failure has a significant disparate impact on

Indians' voting power, denies the Plaintiffs' voting rights and is an apparent effort to
dilute Indian voting strength within Shannon County. Plaintiffs allege that this action, if

allowed, would reestablish the "history of official racial discrimination in voting" in

Shannon County previously investigated by the United States.
2. Unless such action by the Defendants is reversed, the ability of Indians

within Shannon County to effectively participate in the political process will be hindered.

Plaintifls seek declaratory and injunctive relief, both temporary and permanent,

prohibiting the Defendants from abusing their power by carrying out their refusal to

establish polling places in Shannon County within the Pine Ridge Reservation for a six

(6) week period as enjoyed by every other resident of the State of South Dakota. This

relief is sought on the grounds that failure to open polling stations for the six (6) week

time period is a denial of the right to vote and will dilute the voting strength of the

Tribe's members, such elimination would have a disparate impact upon Indians, and that

the policy of not opening the polling stations for the full six (6) week period was adopted

for a discriminatory purpose.

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 3

3. The failure to establish voting stations within the Pine Ridge Reservation

for a full six (6) week period will result in Indian citizens within Shannon County having

less opportunity than non-Indian citizens located outside of Shannon County to

participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice for federal, state,

and county offrces.

AUTIIORITY
4. This action is brought by the Plaintiffs pursuant to Sections 2,5 and lZ(d)

of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. $$ 1973 and 1973j(d);42 U.S.C. $ 1983, providing for civil action for deprivation of rights; the Indian Citizenship Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1a01(a)(2)092Ð;28 U.S.C. çç2201-2202 providing for declaratory relief; and Article II, Section I of the Constitution of the St¿te of South Dakota. This

Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. $1367(a) to hear claims under the Constitution and laws of the State of South Dakota.

JT]RISDICTION A}[D VEI\[]E
5. This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

$1973j(Ð;28 U.S.C. $1362;28 U.S.C. $1331;28 U.S.C. $13a3(a)(3) and (4); and 28

U.S.C. ç2201, along with Article III of the United States Constitution.

6. Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. $$ 2201 and2202.

7 .

Venue is proper in the District of South Dakota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $

1391 (b), because this action is predicated upon a federal question and a substantial part

of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occuned, and will

continue to occur, in this district.

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 4

8. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended,42 U.S.C. $1973,
prohibits the enforcement of any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or any

standard, practice or procedure that results in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote

on account ofrace or color.
9. The Indian Citizenship Act, I U.S.C. $1a01(a)(2), was enacted by
Congress in 1924 to extend full rights of citizenship to Indians including, but not limited

to, the right to vote in federal, state and local elections.

PARTIES
10. Plaintiff Chris Brooks is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe

and a resident of Porcupine, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. He is a qualified

and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.

l.I

PlaintiffFrancis Rencountre is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux

Tribe and a resident of Pine Ridge, South Dakot4 located in Shannon County. She is a

qualified and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.
12. PlaintiffGloria Red Eagle is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux

Tribe and a resident of Porcupine, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. She is a

qualified and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.
13. PlaintiffSharon Conden is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe

and a resident of Pine Ridge, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. She is a

qualified and registered voter within the St¿te of South Dakota.
14. PlaintiffJacqueline Garnier is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux

Tribe and a resident of Wounded Knee, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. She is

a qualified and registered voter within the St¿te of South Dakota.

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 5
15. PlaintiffJennifer Red Owl is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux
Tribe and a resident of Porcupine, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. She is a qualified and registered voter within the State of South Dakot¿.
16. PlaintiffEdwina Weston is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe
and a resident of Porcupine, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. She is a qualified and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.
17. PlaintiffMichelle Weston is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux
Tribe and a resident of Pine Ridge, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. She is a qualified and registered voter within the Søte of South Dakot¿.
18. Plaintiff Monette Two Eagle is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux
Tribe and a resident of Porcupine, South Dakota" located in Shannon County. She is a qualified and registered voter within the Søte of South Dakota.
19. PlaintiffMark A. Mesteth is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux
Tribe and a resident of Porcupine, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. He is a qualified and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.
20. PlaintiffStacy Two Lance is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux
Tribe and a resident of Porcupine, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. She is a qualifïed and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.
21. PlaintiffHarry Brown is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe
and a resident of Pine Ridge, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. He is a qualified and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 6
22. PlaintiffEleanor Weston is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe
and a resident of Porcupine, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. She is a qualified and registered voter within the St¿te of South Dakota.
23. Plaintiff Dawn Black Bull is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux
Tribe and a resident of Porcupine, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. She is a qualified and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.
24. PlaintiffClarice Mesteth is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe
and a resident of Porcupine, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. She is a qualif,red and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.
25. Plaintiff Donovan L. Steele is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux
Tribe and a resident of Manderson, South Dakot¿" located in Shannon County. He is a qualified and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.
26. PlaintiffEileen Janis is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and
a resident of Pine Ridge, South Dakota" located in Shannon County. She is a qualified and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.
27. Plaintiff Leona Little Hawk is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux
Tribe and a resident of Pine Ridge, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. She is a qualified and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.
28. PlaintiffEvan Rencountre is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux
Tribe and a resident of Pine Ridge, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. He is a qualified and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 7
29. PlaintiffCecil Little Hawk, Sr. is an enrolled member ofthe Oglala Sioux
Tribe and a resident of Pine Ridge, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. He is a qualified and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.
30. Plaintiff Linda Red Cloud is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux
Tribe and a resident of Pine Ridge, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. She is a qualified and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.
31. PlaintiffLoretta Little Hawk is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux
Tribe and a resident of Pine Ridge, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. She is a qualified and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.
32. Plaintiff Faith Two Eagle is an enrolled member ofthe Oglala Sioux Tribe
and a resident of Porcupine, South Dakota, located in Shannon County. She is a qualified and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.
33. PlaintiffEdmond Mesteth is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux
Tribe and a resident of Porcupine, South Dakota, located in Shannon Counfy. He is a qualified and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.
34. PlaintiffElmer Kills Back, Jr. is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux
Tribe and a resident of Kyle, South Dakota" located in Shannon County. He is a qualified and registered voter within the State of South Dakota.
35. The Plaintiffs desire to participate in the electoral and political processes
of South Dakot¿ on an equal basis with other residents.
36. Defendant Jason Gant is the South Dakota Secretary of State. 37. Defendant Shannon County, South Dakota, is a political and geographical
subdivision of the State of South Dakota.

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 8
38. Defendant Fall River County, South Dakota, is a political and
geographical subdivision of the State of South Dakota.
39. Defendant the Shannon County Board of Commissioners, is the offrcial
governing authority of Shannon County established under the laws of the State of South Dakota, consists of five (5) members, and exercises the legislative and executive powers in the county.
40. Defendant the Fall River County Board of Commissioners, is the offrcial
governing authority of Fall River County established under the laws of the State of South Dakota, consists of five (5) members, and exercises the legislative and executive powers in the county.
41. Individual Defendants Bryan J. Kehn, Deloris Hagman, Eugenio B. White
Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull, and Lyla Hutchison are members of the Shannon County Board of Commissioners. Each of the Defendants is a resident of Shannon County and is sued in his or her official capacity.
42. Individual Defendants Joe Falkenburg, Anne Cassens, Michael P. Orhrer,
Deb Russell, and Joe Allen are members of the Fall River County Board of
Commissioners. Each of the Defendants is a resident of Fall River County and is sued in his or her official capacity.
43. Defendant Sue Ganje is the Shannon and Fall River County Auditor and in
that capacity exercises responsibility associated with elections for the County. Upon information and belief, Defendant Ganje is a resident of Fall River County and is sued in her official capacity.

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 9
44. Defendant James Sword is the attomey for Shannon and Fall River County
and is sued in his official capacþ.
45. The Defendants, both personally and through the conduct of their agents,
servants and employees, were and are acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this action.
APPLICABLE LAW
46. Article VII, Section 2 of the Constitution ofthe St¿te of South Dakota sets
forth the qualifications to vote in elections as follows: Every United States citizeneighteen years of age or older who has met all residency requirements shall be entitled to vote in all elections and upon all questions submitted to the voters of the state unless disqualified by law for mental incompetence or the conviction of a felony. Each elector who qualified to vote within a precinct shall be entitled to vote in that precinct until he establishes another voting residence. An elector shall never lose his residency for voting solely by reason of his absence from the state.
47. SDCL $12-14-1 provides that "[t]he board of county commissioners shall
by resolution provide for election precincts throughout its county and shall designate polling places within such precincts."
48. SDCL çI2-I4-9 provides that "[p]olling places shall be selected with
reference to the convenience of the voters in the various election precincts, and should be
as near the center of the election precincts as practicable but if in their judgment the convenience of the voters will be served thereby or if communication can be thereby
made available, the polling place may be located outside the boundaries of the precinct."
49. SDCL $12-19-1 provides that*fal registered voter who is not otherwise
disqualified by law from voting in the election may vote by absentee ballot."
9

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 10
50. SDCL $ 12-16-1 provides that "[a]bsentee voting shall begin no earlier
and no later than forty- six days prior to the election."
51. SDCL $12-19-53 provides that "[i]f a county contracts for the services of
a county auditor from another county, that county auditor shall make absentee ballots available in the contracting county if the contracting county requests that absentee ballots be provided. The contracting county shall reimburse the county auditor for the costs incurred pursuant to this section."
THE OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE
52. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation was established by the Fort Laramie
Treaty in 1868. It currently embraces approximately 2.8 million acres, making it the second largest reservation in the United States. The reservation includes all of Shannon County and part of Jackson County. Its southern boundary borders Nebraska" and its western boundary is approximately 50 miles east of Wyoming.
53. The Oglala Sioux Tribe has a tribal enrollment of approximately 38,000
enrolled members who reside within the boundaries ofthe Pine Ridge Reservation. There are approximately 6,935 eligible voters within the Pine Ridge Reservation, most of who are Tribal members or are eligible for Tribal enrollment.
54. The Oglala Sioux Tribe is plagued by many of the same economic and
social problems as most other Tribes. Social problems occur well beyond state and national levels and include low educational completion rates, lower education performance rates, and general health problems. The infant mortality rate is five (5) times higher than the national average. See Ex. 1, A Brief History of the Lakot¿ and the Pine Ridge Reservation Red Cloud Indian School,
l0

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 11
hup://www.redcloudschool.org/history/lakota.htm (last visited January 10,2012). Death
rates due to diabetes are three (3) times higher than the general population. Id. Indeed, life expectancy on the Pine Ridge Reservation is the second lowest in the western
hemisphere - male life expectancy is 48 years and female expectancy is 52 years of age.
Id.
55. On the Pine Ridge reservation, per-capita income is $7,880. The median
income is even lower at $3,500. See Ex. 2, St¿tistics for Pine Ridge, http://www.bacþacksforpineridge.com/Stats_About_Pine_Ridge.html (last visited January 10,2012). Forty-nine percent (49%) of residents live below the federal poverty Iine while sixty one percent (6I%) of residents below the age of eighteen (18) live below the poverty line. See Ex. 3, South Dakota: Pine Ridge Reservation, American Indian Relief Council, http://www.nrcprograms.org/site/PageServer?pagename:airc_res_sd pineridge (last visited January 10,2012). The history of poverty extends to the Tribe itself. If the Oglala Sioux Tribe were to equally dispense revenues from its gaming enterprise, the Prairie Wind Casino, to all enrolled members, each resident would receive 15 cents. According to the 2000 U.S. Federal Census, Shannon County, located within the reservation, is the third poorest county in the nation. See Ex. 4, Testimony of the Honorable John Yellow Bird Steele, President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, Oversight Hearing on lndian Housing, Before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, March2Z, 2007, http://indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Steele032207.pdf (last visited January 10, 2012).
ll

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 12
56. According to the 2000 U.S. Federal Census, 26.6% of all people living in
Shannon County have no high school diploma; only 7.2o/o had obtained a bachelor's or college degree.
57. Other indicators of poor economic development include a severe housing
shortage and sub-standard housing, leaving many homeless and thousands in inadequate housing. According to a statistical brief by the Bureau of the Census, nearly 21 percent of tndian American households lack complete plumbing facilities; over 12 percent lack
plumbing and are crowded, having more residents than rooms. U.S. Department of
Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Housing of American Indians on Reservations (April 1995) (last visited January 10, 2011) http ://www.census. gov/apsd/wwdstatbriefl sb95_9.pdf
58. One estimate suggests that there is an average of 17 people living in each
family home (in perhaps two to three rooms). See F;x.2. This is not always reflected in HUD reports because families, fearing eviction for violating HUD guidelines, sometimes hide additional residents when officials conduct surveys. See Ex. 4.
BACKGROUND OF VOTING HISTORY IN SHA}INON COUNTY
59. Shannon and Todd County are the only two counties in the Søte of South
D akota that arc un incorporated.
60. Shannon County falls entirely within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge
Indian Reservation.
61. Shannon County contracts with Fall River County for the duties of auditor,
treasurer, state's attorney, director ofequalization, and register ofdeeds.
1,2

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 13
62. In2002, the voters of Shannon County were required to request an
absentee ballot from the Shannon County auditor. However, because the Shannon County auditor position was contracted out to the Fall River auditor located in Hot Springs, South Dakota, Shannon County voters would only receive an absentee ballot after mailing the application to Hot Springs. The Shannon County voter would then have to conduct a second mailing to cast their vote unless they drove to Hot Springs to deliver
it personally.Ex. 5, Healy Afî.2
63. Other South Dakota citizens can simply go to the courthouse in their
respective counties to obt¿in and cast an absentee ballot in one trip. Although these
voters are actually casting an absentee ballot in-person, this is commonly known as "eatly voting." Additionally, South Dakota residents can register to vote, request an absentee ballot, receive the absentee ballot, and cast their ballot for the first four (4) weeks of the absentee ballot voting period from six (6) weeks prior to the election up until two (2) weeks prior to the election. Ex. 5, Healy Aff.2-3. Thereafter, except for Shannon County voters, registered voters are able to go to their respective courthouse and request and complete an absentee ballot for the final two (2) weeks of the absentee ballot period,
including up until 3:00 p.m. on Election Day. Id. This simplified means of casting a vote
simply was not available to Shannon County residents. [n fact, it required significant costly travel from the reservation. For example, from Oglala, South Dakota, to Hot Springs it would take a minimum of 53 minutes depending on the route t¿ken; from Pine
Ridge, South Dakota to Hot Springs, it would take anywhere from I hour 9 minutes to 1
hour and 55 minutes; from Kyle, South Dakota, to Hot Springs anywhere from 2 hours 14
minutes to 2 hours and34 minutes; from 'Wounded Knee, South Dakota to Hot Springs it
l3

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 14
would take I hour 26 minutes; from Manderson, South Dakotato Hot Springs anywhere between t hour 40 minutes and 2 hours 29 minutes; from Potato Creek, South Dakota to Hot Springs anywhere from 2 hours 39 minutes to 2 hours 45 minutes; from Grass Creek, South Dakota to Hot Springs anywhere from 2 hours 10 minutes to 2 hours 28 minutes; from Slim Buttes, South Dakota to Hot Springs anywhere from I hour 21 minutes to 2 hours 28 minutes; from Waþamni, South Dakota to Hot Springs anywhere from I hour 41 minutes to two hours 15 minutes; from Porcupine, South Dakota to Hot Springs anywhere from t hour 41 minutes to 2 hours 29 minutes; from Rockyford, South Dakota to Hot Springs anywhere from 2 hours 4 minutes to 2 hours 6 minutes; from Red Shirt, South Dakota to Hot Springs anywhere from t hour 7 minutes to I hour 40 minutes; and finally, from Batesland, South Dakota to Hot Springs t hour 37 minutes. Combined with the amount of gas and time it would take to travel from within the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation to Hot Springs, many voters residing on the reservation do not own an automobile and do not have ready access to transportation. Because of the high poverty level, many of the voters must conserve gas money. These impediments presented disparate impacts affecting lndian voters within Shannon County.
64. Many members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe do not regard voting by mail as
being a viable option. In light of past discrimination and hostilities, many do not feel confident that ballots that are mailed to a county official will be appropriately placed within the ballot box by the recipient and thereafter counted. Individuals feel more confident when they can deliver the ballot in person.
t4

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 15
65. ln2004,the Fall River County auditor failed to establish a location
geographically located within Shannon County where eligible voters could register to
vote and request and complete an absentee ballot. See Ex. 5, Healy 4ff3.
66. 1n2004, the Shannon County Board of Commissioners asked that the Fall
River County Board of Commissioners establish polling places within the confines of Shannon County for the 2004 election. Id.at 4. The approval process for early voting includes the Shannon County Board of Commissioners, the Fall River County Board of
Commissioners, the Fall River County Auditor, the United States Department of Justice,
and the Shannon County State's attorney. Id. The Fall River County Board of
Commissioners agreed - but only after donations were promised to allay the costs of the
additional polling places. Id. All required approvals for alternative voting locations in Shannon County were obtained in early October of 2004. Id.
67. To maintain the alternative polling locations for a mere three (3) week
period, Four Directions paid $15,000 to Shannon County who in turn reimbursed Fall River County for services rendered. Id.
68. In 2004, an early voting location was alternated between Kyle, South Dakota and Pine Ridge, South Dakota for approximately four (4) hows per day for that three (3) week period. Id.
69. The early voting locations contributed to voter turnout more than doubling
in Shannon County from 2000 to 2004. Id. Indeed, of the 6,520 registered voters
residing in Shannon County 56.98 % cast their ballots and 1673 were cast by absentee ballot. See Ex. 6, South Dakot¿ Secretary of State 2004 Absentee Ballot Records,
t5

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 16
http://sdsos.gov/contenlviewcontent.aspx?caFelections&pp-lelections/pastelections_ele ct'oninfo04_absenteeballotnumbers.shtm (last visited on December 29,2011).
70. In the 2004 general election in Shannon County, 36.78% of the votes cast
were absentee ballots, compare to23.96%o statewide. See Ex. 6, South Dakota Secretary of State 2004 Absentee Ballot Records, http://sdsos.gov/contenflviewcontent.aspx?cat:elections&p5-/electionsþastelections_ele ct'oninfo04_absenteeballotnumbers.shtm (last visited on December29,2011).
7I. In the 2004 general election in Shannon County, turnout was 56.98%
compared to a statewide average of 78.63Vo. See Ex. 7, South Dakot¿ Secretary of State 2004 Voter Turnout Records, http://sdsos.gov/contenlviewcontent.aspx?cat:elections&pg-/elections/pastelections_ele ctioninfo06_voterturnoutbycounty.shtm (last visited on December 29,2011).
72. For the 2006 election, there was no early voting in Shannon County. Of
the 2459 registered voters in Shannon County, 31.34% cast their ballots and only 69 did so by absentee ballot through the mail or by voting early at the Fall River County Auditor's Office. Only 2.8I%o of Shannon County's votes were absentee or early votes in
2006, compared to a statewide average of 27.35%o. See Ex. 8, South Dakota Secretary of
State 2006 Absentee Ballot Records, http://sdsos.gov/contenlviewcontent.aspx?caFelections&p5-lelections/pastelections_ele ctioninfo06_absenteeballoûrumbers.shtm (last visited on December 29,201l).
73. In the 2006 general election in Shannon County, turnout was3l.34Vo
compared to 67.26%o statewide. See Ex. 9, South Dakot¿ Secretary of State 2006 Voter Turnout Records,
t6

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 17 of 27 PageID #: 17
http://sdsos.gov/contenflviewcontent.aspx?caFelections&pg:/electionsþastelections_ele ctioninfoO6_voterturnoutbycounty.shtm (last visited on December 29,2011).
74. In the 2008 general election, of the 8,042 registered voters in Shannon
County, 3425 casttheir ballots, for a turnout rcte of 42.59%o.
http://sdsos.gov/contenVviewcontent.aspx?cat:elections&p5-lelections/pastelections_ele ctioninfo0Sgeneraltoctypct.shtm (last visited January 12,2012). Only 448 did so by
absentee ballot. See Ex. I l, South Dakota Secretary of State 2008 Absentee Ballot
Records, http://sdsos.gov/contenfviewcontent.aspx?cat:elections&pg-/elections/pastelections_ele ctioninfo0Sgeneralabsentee. shtm (last visited on Decemb er 29, 20 1 1 ).
75. In Shannon County in 2008, 13.l% of the votes were absentee ballots,
either by mail, early voting in Shannon County, or early voting at the Fall River County Auditor's Office. The statewide average was26.020/o in South Dakota in the 2008 general election. See Ex. 11, South Dakota Secretary of State 2008 Absentee Ballot Records Available at http://sdsos.gov/contenlviewcontent.aspx?caFelections&pg-/elections/pastelections_ele ctioninfoO 8_generalabsentee. shfn (last visited on Decemb er 29, 20 I I ).
76. In the 2008 election, Shannon County had just two days of early voting in
the general election, with shorter hours than in Fall River County. See Ex. 12, Charles Michael Ray, In S.D., Native Americans Face Voting Roadblocks, NPR transcript at 1 (October 26,2008). In the 2008 general election, turnout was 42.59Yo in Shannon County compared to73.02%o statewide. See Ex. 10, South Dakot¿ Secretary of St¿te 2008 Voter Tumout Records Available at
t7

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 18 of 27 PageID #: 18

http://sdsos.gov/contenlviewcontent.aspx?caFelections&p5-lelections/pastelections_ele

ctioninfo0Sgeneraltoctypct. shtm (accessed on Decemb er 29, 20 t I ).

. 77

For the 2010 election, there was approximately twenty-two (22) days early

voting in Shannon County. However, unlike other counties in the State of South Dakota,

there was no in person absentee voting in Shannon County on Election Day. See Exhibit

5, Healy Aff. 6.
78. Of the 7,530 registered voter in Shannon County, 2,628 voters, or

34.90%o,voted in 2010 and 488 of those did so by absentee ballot. 18.57% of the ballots

were absentee in the 2010 general election in Shannon County, compared to a statewide

average of 19.71%o. See Ex. 13, South Dakot¿ Secretary of State 2010 Absentee Ballot

Records,

http://sdsos.gov/contenlviewcontent.aspx?caFelections&pglelectionsþastelections_ge

neral2Ol0_abs.shûn (last visited December 29,2011). See also_Ex. 14.
79. In the 2010 midterm general election, Shannon County turnout was 34.9%o

compared to 62.270/o statewide. See Ex. 14, South Dakota Secretary of State 2010 Voter

Turnout Records,

http://sdsos.gov/contenlviewcontent.aspx?caFelections&pp-lelections/pastelections_ge

neral2O 1 O_turnout. shtm (last visited December 29, 201 l).

80. In the2004-2010 elections, residents of every other county besides Shannon

and Todd County had access to convenient early voting in their local county auditors'
offices starting 46 days before the primary and general elections. See Ex. 5, Healy Aff.

FACTUAL BACKGROT]ND OF EVENTS

18

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 19 of 27 PageID #: 19
81. The Defendants have a lengthy history of attempting to circumvent the
Indians' right to vote and participate in the political process. By letter dated September 28,2009, the United States informed Shannon County and its Auditor that it had authority to file suit alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
82. In response to the threat made by the United States, James Sword, Fall
River States Attorney, complained to Senator Tim Johnson that "Shannon County and [County Auditor Sue Ganje] are willing to work with DOJ to improve the voting process, but we won't be threatened/intimidated into signing any settlement agreement." Ex. 15, Letter from James G. Sword to Senator Tim Johnson (October 21,2009).
83. The United States did not relent and Senator Johnson did not intercede,
and so Mr. Sword proceeded to threaten the United States Attorney that "[i]f a voting rights complaint is filed I will resign. Sue will resign. Fall River County is not obligated
to sign any contract with Shannon County, especially in light of lawsuits now pending. DOJ, the State of South Dakota and the tribe can argue about who is going to run the 2010 elections." Ex. 16, Letter from James G. Sword to United States Attorney Brendan Johnson at 2 @ecember 31, 2009).
84. On or about April23,2010 the United States, the Shannon County Board
of County Commissioners and the Shannon County Auditor entered a memorandum of
agreement that required the County to provide Lakota translators at each of the polling locations and to provide applicable training to same. Ex. 17, Memorandum of Agreement (April23,2010).
85. On or about August 3,2010, Mr. Sword informed interested parties that he
intended to advise against the establishment of absentee voting locations in Shannon
t9

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 20 of 27 PageID #: 20
County. He gave as his rationale that they had been sued by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the American Civil Liberties Union on voting rights matters in
Shannon County and that they were tired of it. He further claimed to be upset because
neither US Attorney Brendon Johnson nor US Senator Tim Johnson would help with the
US DOJ matter. See Ex. 5, Healy Aff. 5-6.
86. Mr. Sword also claimed that one of the reasons he held this view is
because Patrick Duffy, an attorney for the ACLU, had not "picked up the phone and called him" and had instead proceeded with the lawsuit and had sued the Fall River County Auditor in her personal capacity. Id. at 5.
87. Mr. Sword further claimed that both he and the Fall River County Auditor
had a contract with Shannon County and that this contract had a 30 day termination clause. Id.
88. Mr. Sword claimed that if a request for absentee voting locations during
the six (6) week absentee voting period in Shannon County were to be made by the Shannon County Commission, he would exercise the termination clause in his agreement with the Shannon County Commission and advise the Fall River County Auditor to do the same and that Shannon County would have no one to conduct the 2010 election. Id. at 5-6.
89. Mr. Sword further claimed that he had already spoken to South Dakota
Attorney General Marty Jackley and that he had been advised that Fall River County had no obligation to provide election services to Shannon County. Id. at 6.
20

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 21 of 27 PageID #: 21
90. On or about August 18, 2010, the Oglala Sioux Tribe President requested
two satellite offices at Pine Ridge Village and Kyle. See Ex. 18, Letter from President Theresa Two Bulls to Shannon County Commissioners (August 18, 2010).
91. Despite Mr. Sword's threats, Shannon County registered voters were
allowed approximately twenty-two (22) days in which to cast an early vote in 2010.
92. Native Americans in Shannon County and in South Dakota have common
socioeconomic characteristics, a common and distinct history, a common and distinct quasi-sovereign tribal status, a unique political status under the treaties, laws, and executive orders of the United States, and a special trust relationship with the United
States.
93. Historically, Native American residents of Shannon County have been
subject to private as well as official discrimination on the basis of race, tribal, and
language minority status, including discrimination in attempting to exercise their right of
franchise and to participate equally with other residents in the political process.
94. Native American residents of Shannon County and South Dakota bear the
effects of discrimination on the basis of race and tribal status in education, housing, employment, and health services which have resulted in a lower socioeconomic status which hinders their ability to participate effectively in the political process.
95. Section 1973(b) of the Voting Rights Act, in relevant part, states that it is a
violation of the Voting Rights, if, based on the totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the state or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected... in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.
2l

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 22 of 27 PageID #: 22
Thus, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended, protects Indians from voting practices which have a disparate impact on their right to vote.
96. ln Spirit Lake Tribe v. Benson Countv. et al., CIV 2:10-cv-095 (D.N.D.
2010), the Court noted the following: The County asserts that no right to vote in person has ever been recognized under the Constitution. Additionally, the County asserts that the mail-in procedure
actually solves the transport¿tion problems and will increase voter participation.
While such an argument is tenable in communities with stable housing arrangements, poverty and transience ofthe Reservation makes mail balloting more difficult for tribal members. The evidence suggests that Indians are more likely to have not received a ballot application, which when coupled with a decreased ability to vote in person, creates a disparate impact. (internal citations omitted)
97. The legitimate interests of the Defendants will not be undermined in the
event that the Court grants the relief prayed for herein.
98. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. 99. Plaintiffs will suffer ineparable harm as a result of the violations
complained of herein, and that harm will continue unless Defendants' failure to allow
early voting for a six (6) week period is declared unlawful and enjoined by this Court.
100. Plaintiffs desire to vote early at an in-person absentee voting location in
Shannon County in the spring 2012 primary election and fall 2012 general election, at some point during the 46 day early vote period authorized by South Dakota law
l0l. Plaintifß have requested that Shannon County, Fall River County and the
State of South Dakota provide at least one early voting location in Shannon County in the 2012 primary and general elections.
102 Defendant Shannon County has agreed to provide only 6 days of early
voting for the 2012 primary and general elections. See Ex. 23, Shannon Co. Comm.
22

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 23 of 27 PageID #: 23
Minutes at 6 @ecember 2,2011). See also Ex. 19, Andrea J. Cook-$þannon
Commission approves limited earlv voting in 2012, Rapid Cþ Journal, Dec. 10, 2011. 103. Secretary of Søte Gant has not agreed to provide funding from FIAVA or
any other source to assist with early voting for the full 46 days authorized by South Dakota law in Shannon County, and has only indicated a willingness to consider reimbursement requests for early voting in Shannon County. 8x.20, Letter from Secretary of State Gant to Steven D. Sandven @ecember 30, 2011).
104. Shannon County is one of the poorest counties in the nation, with a limited
private property tax base, and has had to make sacrifices to provide even six days of early voting. See Ex. 19.
105 Unless this Court issues an injunction ordering the Defendants to establish
and fund at least one early voting location in Shannon County for the full time period authorized by South Dakota law, starting 46 days before the primary and general elections, Plaintifß, along with all Indians within Shannon County, will be denied their right to vote on an equal basis as non-Indian citizens and would suffer irreparable harm.
CLAIM ONE VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTTTUTTON A¡tD 42 U.S.C. $ 1983
106. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein.
107. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
provides: "No. . . State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."
23

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 24 of 27 PageID #: 24
108. The Defendants have acted under color of state law to deprive the voters
of Shannon County of the equal protection of the laws by arbitrarily failing to establish early voting polling places within Shannon County for a full six (6) week period as enjoyed by almost every other registered voter in the State of South Dakota in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. $ 1983
CLAIM TWO VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
109. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein.
110. The South Dakota Constitution provides: "Elections shall be free and
equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage." S.D. Const. Art. VII, 1; S.D. Const. Art. VI, $ 19.110.
111. The Defendants have acted under color of state law to deprive the voters
of Shannon County equal elections by arbitrarily failing to establish early voting polling places within Shannon County for a full six (6) week period as enjoyed by almost every other registered voter in the St¿te of South Dakota in violation of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
CLAIM THREE VIOLATION OF TIIE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
Il2. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein.
113. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides: "No voting qualif,rcation or
prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by
any Søte or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of
24

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 25 of 27 PageID #: 25

the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color," or

membership in a language minority group. 42 U.S.C. $ 1973(a).
Il4. Defendants' failure to establish early voting polling places within Shannon

County for a full six (6) week period has resulted in Indians, including the Plaintiffs,

having less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political

process and elect representatives of their choice, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting

Rights Act.

RELTEF WI{EREFORE, Plaintiffs pray thæ the Court enter judgment in their favor as follows:
1. That this court assume jurisdiction; 2. That this court declare that the Defendant's failure to provide an early voting

polling place in Shannon County for the full 46-day time period authorized by South

Dakot¿ law violates existing law, including, but not limited to, $ 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended, the Indian Citizenship Act, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution, and the South Dakot¿ Constitution;
3. Declare that the policy requiring unincorporated counties to submit for

reimbursement of FIAVA funds, rather than allowing unincorporated counties to use

FIAVA funds for election expenses when needed violates the Voting Rights Act;

4.

Grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief by ordering the Defendants to

est¿blish and fund with FIAVA or other state funds at least one early voting location in

Shannon County for the full 46-day time period authorized by South Dakota law for all

future elections, and further relief as the interest ofjustice may require;

25

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 26 of 27 PageID #: 26
5. Grantplaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. $ 1973(e) and $ 1988; and
6. Grant the Plaintifß any further relief which may in the discretion of the Court be
necessary and proper to ensure that the voting rights of lndians within Shannon County are properly respected in accordance with the Orders of this Court;

January 13,2012

STEVEN D. SANDVEN, Law Office
By:
. SANDVEN 300 Building 300 North DakotaAvenue, Suite 106 Sioux Falls SD 57104 Telephone: 605 332-4408 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

26

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 27 of 27 PageID #: 27

VERIFICATION

DAWNBLACKBULLdeclarespursuantto23U'S'C.$1746:

ñ; I
contents

am one thereof

of the are

plaintiffs in this case. I have read the foregoing to the best of my knowledge, information and

complaint belief'

and

the

IdeclareunderpenaltyofperjuryunderthelawsoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica that the foregoing is true and correct'
Executed on JanuarY
-,2012'

Dqr.^9t", I 9r ;:r
Dawn Black Bull

27

 
 Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 1 of 47 PageID #: 1816

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 2 of 47 PageID #: 1817

!"#$%&'(&)'*!%*!+&
!
!"#$%#$&' "# $%&'()*+&!,(--./0! ! 2# 34)/56(')*54! ! 8# 9&:&./';!<&);56:! ! 1# >5(4)0!?&-5@/.A;*'!9&:(B):! C# 9&:&./';!D(&:)*54!E4&! F# 9&:&./';!D(&:)*54!GH5! ># 9&:&./';!D(&:)*54!G;/&&! ! ! 7# 9.'*.B!I5B./*J.)*54!.46!K*:)5/0!5L!?*:'/*-*4.)*54!C@.*4:)!C-&/*'.4! 346*.4:!*4!,5();!?.M5).!$B&')*54:! C# 9&:&./';!D(&:)*54!N5(/! F# 9&:&./';!D(&:)*54!N*+&!.46!,*%!
! ! !
=# ,;.4454!>5(4)0!I(PB*'!EA*4*54!,(/+&0!.46!N5'(:!Q/5(A!9&:(B):! C# 9&:&./';!D(&:)*54!,&+&4! F# 9&:&./';!D(&:)*54!$*@;)! ># 9&:&./';!D(&:)*54!R*4&! ! ! ! !
T# 9&+*&H!5L!R.)*54.B!9&:&./';!54!$./B0!U5)*4@!! C# 9&:&./';!D(&:)*54!G&4! ! !
O# ?*:'(::*54!.46!>54'B(:*54:! !
S# $%A&/)ǯ:!?&'B./.)*54!
"V# CAA&46*%!CW!!,;.4454!>5(4)0!$./B0!U5)*4@!I(PB*'!EA*4*54!,(/+&0! !
""# CAA&46*%!FW!!I(PB*'!EA*4*54!,(/+&0!9&:A54:&!N/&X(&4'*&:! !
"2# CAA&46*%!ǣǯ,).)&-&4)! ! !

()*%' 1!
7!
=!
""! ""! "2! "1!
"7! !
"7! "O!
"S! "S! 2"! 22!
2T! 2T!
2O!
8V! !
8"! 88!
18!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 3 of 47 PageID #: 1818

F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !
!"#$%&'(&!"#$%+&
!

+),-%&' !!!G.PB&!8#"W!!9&:&./';!D(&:)*54:!.46!C::5'*.)&6!<&);56:! ! !!!G.PB&!8#2W!!9&:A546&4)!G0A&:! ! !!!G.PB&!8#8W!!,(/+&0!9&:A546&4)!9.'*.B!<.M&Z(A! !
!!!G.PB&!7#"W!!>5//&B.)*54!9&:(B):!L5/!R.)*+&!I5A(B.)*54!.46!U5)&/!9&@*:)/.)*54!
! !!!G.PB&!7#2W!>5//&B.)*54!9&:(B):!L5/!R.)*+&!I5A(B.)*54!.46!C@@/&@.)&6!,5();!! !!!?.M5).!>54:)*)()*54.B!ELL*'&/!U5)&!<./@*4! ! !!!G.PB&!=#"W!!>54'&/4:!.P5()!U5)*4@!*4!N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)0! ! '''G.PB&!O#"W!!,(--./0!>54'B(:*54:!L5/!9&:&./';!D(&:)*54:! !
!

()*%' =! O! "V! "T!
"O!
28! 2O!

!

!

!"#"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 4 of 47 PageID #: 1819

F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !
!"#$%&'(&(,-./%+&
!

./*01%&'

!!!N*@(/&!8#"W!!9&:A546&4)!C@&!

!

!!!N*@(/&!1#"W!!C-&/*'.4!346*.4!>5(4)0!I5A(B.)*54!I&/'&4).@&:!

!

!!!N*@(/&!=#"W!!,).)&!U5)*4@!K*:)5/0!

!

!!!N*@(/&!=#2W!!G/*P.B!U5)*4@!K*:)5/0!

! !!! ͸Ǥ͵ǣǲ! !!!Ǥǳ!

! !!! ͸ǤͶǣǡǲL!&./B0!+5)*4@!H.:!-.6&!

!!!.+.*B.PB&!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0!3!H5(B6!P&!-5/&!B*M&B0!)5!+5)&!*4!,5();!?.M5).!! !!!&B&')*54:Ǥǳ!

!

!

'

()*%' S! "2! 2V! 2V! 2"!
22!

!"$"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 5 of 47 PageID #: 1820

F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! ! 23'454!6+784'96::;<=' !

G;&! L5BB5H*4@! *:! .4! &%A&/)! /&A5/)! :(P-*))&6! L5/! );&! '.:&! 5L! F/55M:Y! &)! .B#! +#! Q.4)#! &)#! .B#Y! A&46*4@!P&L5/&!);&![4*)&6!,).)&:!?*:)/*')!>5(/)Y!?*:)/*')!5L!,5();!?.M5).Y!\&:)&/4!?*+*:*54! L5/!);&!>5(4)0!5L!I&44*4@)54Y!,).)&!5L!,5();!?.M5).#!!G;&!A5:*)*54!5L!AB.*4)*LL:!*4!);*:!'.:&!*:! );.)!);&!.P:&4'&!5L!&./B0!+5)*4@!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0Y!,5();!?.M5).Y!+*5B.)&:!,&')*54!2!5L!);&! U5)*4@!9*@;):!C')#!!!

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ǯ!*6&4)*)*&:! ./&! M&A)! '54L*6&4)*.B! );/5(@;5()! );&! /&:&./';Y! H;*';! H.:! L5'(:&6! 54! )&4! /&B.)&6! /&:&./';! X(&:)*54:#!!!!

G;&!L*46*4@:!L/5-!);*:!/&:&./';!6&-54:)/.)&!);.)!C-&/*'.4!346*.4:!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0!./&! .! @&5@/.A;*'.BB0! '5-A.')! .46! /.'*.BB0! '5;&:*+&! @/5(AY! '54:)*)()*4@! .! -.^5/*)0! 5L! );&! ǯǤ A5B./*J&6! .46! );.)! );&/&! *:! .! ;*:)5/0! 5L! P5);! 5LL*'*.B! .46! (45LL*'*.B! 6*:'/*-*4.)*54! .@.*4:)! C-&/*'.4!346*.4:!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0!);.)!4&@.)*+&B0!*-A.')!);&*/!.P*B*)0!)5!A./)*'*A.)&!L(BB0! *4!:).)&!.46!4.)*54.B!&B&')*54:#!!

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

G;&!:(--./0!5A*4*54!5L!);&!&%A&/)!;&/&!*:!);.)!,;.4454!>5(4)0!*:!6*B()*4@!);&!:)/&4@);!5L! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4! '*)*J&4:! P0! B*-*)*4@! .''&::! )5! &./B0! +5)*4@! .46! );.)! A/5+*6*4@! .4! .B)&/4.)*+&! 5A)*54! 5L! &./B0! +5)*4@! *4! N.BB! 9*+&/! >5(4)0! A/5+*6&:! B*))B&Y! *L! .40Y! /&B*&L! 5L! );*:! '546*)*54#!!!

!

!

!"%"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 6 of 47 PageID #: 1821
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! ! >3'7?+<@A6!+7@?' !
G;&! L5BB5H*4@! *:! );&! /&A5/)! 5L! 9*';./6! F/.(4:)&*4! /&@./6*4@! );&! '.:&! 5L! F/55M:Y! &)! .B#! +#! Q.4)#! &)! .B#Y! >.:&! 45#! >*+#! "2Z7VV8Y! A&46*4@! P&L5/&! );&! [4*)&6! ,).)&:! ?*:)/*')! >5(/)Y! ?*:)/*')! 5L! ,5();! ?.M5).Y! \&:)&/4! ?*+*:*54! L5/! );&! >5(4)0! 5L! I&44*4@)54Y! ,).)&! 5L! ,5();! ?.M5).#!           ǯ! .))5/4&0Y! ,)&+&4! ?#! ,.46+&4! _.H! ELL*'&Y! )5! .::&::! );&! *-A.')! 5L! );&! .6-*4*:)/.)*54! 5L! &B&')*54:! *4! ,;.4454! ǯǤ! ! G;&! IB.*4)*LL:! -.*4).*4! );.)! ,;.4454! >5(4)0Y! N.BB! 9*+&/! >5(4)0Y! .46! ,&'/&)./0! 5L! ,).)&! 
ǯ'(//&4)!&./B0!+5)*4@!A/.')*'&:!.46!A/5'&6(/&:!+*5B.)&!,&')*54!2!5L!);&!U5)*4@!9*@;):! C')Y! H;*';! :).)&:!         ǲǡ   A/5'&6(/&! #! #! #! H;*';! /&:(B):! *4! .! 6&4*.B! 5/! .P/*6@&-&4)! 5L! );&! /*@;)! 5L! .40! '*)*J&4! 5L! );&! ǤǳͶʹǤǤǤǤȚͳͻ͹͵ȋȌȋȌǤ! ! G;&! .AA/5.';! )5! &+.B(.)*4@! );&! *-A.')! );.)! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! &B&')*54! A/.')*'&:! ;.+&! 54! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4! +5)*4@! /*@;):! L5BB5H:! );&! @&4&/.B! L/.-&H5/M! &:).PB*:;&6! *4! Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. (1986), including examination of three preconditions for Section 2 Voting Rights Act cases. F&0546! 6*:'(::*54! 5L! );&:&! A/&'546*)*54:Y! );&! /&:&./';! *4+&:)*@.)&:! H;&);&/! -&-P&/:! 5L! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4:! *4! ,;.4454! >5(4)0Y! ,5();! ?.M5).Y! ;.+&! B&::! 5AA5/)(4*)0!);.4!5);&/!-&-P&/:!5L!);&!&B&')5/.)&!)5!A./)*'*A.)&!*4!);&!A5B*)*'.B!A/5'&::!.46! &B&')!/&A/&:&4).)*+&:!5L!);&*/!';5*'&Y!.:!6*/&')&6!*4!ǯǡǤǤY!SS1!N#26! ""18Y!""1=Z1T!`7);!>*/#!"SS8a#! ! G;&! /&A5/)! L*/:)! B.0:!        ǯ  5A*4*54! .46!);&! /&:&./';!-&);56:!6&:*@4&6!)5!.66/&::! &.';!/&:&./';!X(&:)*54!*6&4)*L*&6#!! G;5(@;! .! 4(-P&/! 5L! A/&B*-*4./0! /&:&./';! X(&:)*54:! ./&! .66/&::&6Y! );&! 6&:*@4! 5L! );*:! /&:&./';!'(B-*4.)&:!H*);!);&!X(&:)*54!5L!H;&);&/!C-&/*'.4!346*.4:!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0!./&! (4*X(&B0! 6*:.6+.4).@&6! H;&4! '5-A./&6! H*);! 5);&/! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4:! *4! ,5();! ?.M5).! );/5(@;!:)/(')(/.B!'54:)/.*4):!54!+5)*4@!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0b!
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ǯǤ!!! !
!"&"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 7 of 47 PageID #: 1822

F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! ! B3''<494;<!C':4+C@A9' ! G;&!.AA/5.';!)5!&+.B(.)*4@!);&!&B&-&4):!5L!,;.4454!>5(4)0!+5)*4@!A/.')*'&:!/&B.)&6!)5!);&! '.:&!5L!F/55M:Y!&)!.B#!+#!Q.4)#!&)!.B#Y!H.:Y!*4!A./)Y!6&)&/-*4&6!!P0!);&!4&&6!)5!.66/&::! );/&&! A/&'546*)*54:! &:).PB*:;&6! *4! Thornburg v. Gingles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

+),-%'B32D''<%&%)1EF'G0%&$/"#&')#H';&&"E/)$%H':%$F"H&'

!

<%&%)1EF'G0%&$/"#&'

;&&"E/)$%H':%$F"H&'

'

"#! C/&! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4:! .! $%.-*4&! [,! >&4:(:! F(/&.(! .46! ,5();! ?.M5).!

:(LL*'*&4)B0! B./@&! .46! @&5@/.A;*'.BB0! '5-A.')! ,&'/&)./0!5L!,).)&!6.).#!!!

@/5(A! '54:)*)()*4@! .! -.^5/*)0! *4! ,;.4454! !

>5(4)0b!

!

2#! C/&! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4:! $%.-*4&! ,5();! ?.M5).! ,&'/&)./0! 5L! ,).)&! 6.).!

A5B*)*'.BB0!'5;&:*+&b!

.46!4.)*54.B!B*)&/.)(/&!54!A5B*)*'.B!'5;&:*54#!!!

!

!

8#!?5!\;*)&:!+5)&!:(LL*'*&4)B0!.:!.!PB5'!)5!&4.PB&! $%.-*4&!,5();!?.M5).!,&'/&)./0!5L!,).)&!6.).!)5!

*)! )5! (:(.BB0! 6&L&.)! );&! A/&L&//&6! '.46*6.)&! 5L! &%.-*4&! +5)*4@! P&;.+*5/! )/&46:! P0! /.'&! )5!

,;.4454!>5(4)0!C-&/*'.4!346*.4:b!

@&4&/.)&! '54'B(:*54:! .P5()! H;&);&/! );&!

!

-.^5/*)0! @/5(A! +5)&:! :(LL*'*&4)B0! .:! .! PB5'! )5!

      ǯ

A/&L&//&6!'.46*6.)&#!

!

!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "!ǯǡǤǤY!SS1!N#26!""18Y!""1=Z1T!`7);!>*/#!"SS8a#!
!
!"'"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 8 of 47 PageID #: 1823

F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)!

F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8!

!

!

1#!!3:!+5)*4@!*4!&B&')*54:!5L!);&!:).)&!5/!A5B*)*'.B! $%.-*4&! );&! '5//&B.)*54! P&)H&&4! C-&/*'.4!

:(P6*+*:*54!/.'*.BB0!A5B./*J&6b!

346*.4! A5A(B.)*54! A&/'&4).@&! .46! ?&-5'/.)*'!

!

A./)0! +5)&! -./@*4#! ! G;&! ;0A5);&:*:! ;&/&! *:! );.)!

.:! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4! A5A(B.)*54! A&/'&4).@&!

*4'/&.:&:Y! );&! +5)&! -./@*4! 5L! ?&-5'/.)*'!

'.46*6.)&:!.B:5!*4'/&.:&:#!!

!!

7#!!3:!);&/&!.!;*:)5/0!5L!5LL*'*.B!6*:'/*-*4.)*54!*4! 9&+*&H! /&:&./';! B*)&/.)(/&Y! '546(')! A(PB*'!

:).)&! 5/! A5B*)*'.B! :(P6*+*:*54! );.)! )5(';&6! );&! 5A*4*54!:(/+&0!.46!&B*)&!*4)&/+*&H:#!!

/*@;)! 5L! -&-P&/:! 5L! );&! -*45/*)0! @/5(A! )5!

/&@*:)&/Y! )5! +5)&Y! 5/! 5);&/H*:&! )5! A./)*'*A.)&! *4!

);&!6&-5'/.)*'!A/5'&::b!

!

=#!!?5!C-&/*'.4!346*.4:!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0!P&./! >546(')! B*)&/.)(/&! /&+*&H! .46! &%.-*4&! [#,#!

);&! &LL&'):! 5L! 6*:'/*-*4.)*54! *4! :(';! ./&.:! .:! >&4:(:!F(/&.(!.46!?&A./)-&4)!5L!K&.B);!6.).#!!!

&6('.)*54Y! &-AB50-&4)! .46! ;&.B);Y! H;*';! !

;*46&/! );&*/! .P*B*)0! )5! A./)*'*A.)&! &LL&')*+&B0! *4! !

);&!A5B*)*'.B!A/5'&::b!

!

T#!C/&!,;.4454!>5(4)0!'*)*J&4:!&4@.@&6!*4!:).)&Y! >546(')!:(/+&0!.46!&B*)&!*4)&/+*&H:!5L!C-&/*'.4!

4.)*54.B!.46!)/*P.B!&B&')*54:b!

346*.4:!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0#!

!

O#! ! ?5! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! '*)*J&4:! :(AA5/)! &./B0! >546(')!:(/+&0!.46!&B*)&!*4)&/+*&H:!5L!C-&/*'.4!

+5)*4@! .:! .4! &::&4)*.B! A./)! 5L! );&! &B&')5/.B! 346*.4:!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0#!

A/5'&::!*4!);&*/!'5(4)0b!

!

!

S#! ?5! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4! +5)&/:! >546(')!:(/+&0!.46!&B*)&!*4)&/+*&H:!5L!C-&/*'.4!

;.+&!.!L&./!5/!;&:*).4'0!)5!+5)&!.)!K5)!,A/*4@:!*4! 346*.4:!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0#!

N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)0b!

!

!

!

"V#! ! 3:! );&/&! .! :).)*:)*'.B! /&B.)*54:;*A! P&)H&&4! >546(')!B*)&/.)(/&!/&+*&H#!

&./B0!+5)*4@!A/5+*:*54:!.46!&B&')5/.B!)(/45()b!

!

!

G;&!*4*)*.B!/&:&./';!X(&:)*54:!L5'(:&6!54!'5(4)0!.46!&B&')5/.B!6&-5@/.A;*':!()*B*J&6!A(PB*'! ǯǤǡ

A(PB*:;&6!B*)&/.)(/&!H.:!/&+*&H&6!L5/!);&!A(/A5:&!5L!*6&4)*L0*4@!H;.)!*:!M45H4!.P5()!);&!

/&:&./';!X(&:)*54:!L/5-!A/&+*5(:!/&:&./';#!!!

!

G;&! A(PB*'! 5A*4*54! :(/+&0! .6-*4*:)&/&6! L5/! );*:! A/5^&')! (:&6! .! '54+&4*&4'&! :.-AB*4@!

6&:*@4#! ! G;&! @5.B! H.:! )5! '/&.)&! .! /&A/&:&4).)*+&! :.-AB&! 5L! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! /&:*6&4):! P0!

.''&::*4@!*46*+*6(.B:!*4!.!H*6&!+./*&)0!5L!B5'.)*54:!);/5(@;5()!);&!'5(4)0#!!C/&.:!:(/+&0&6!

*4'B(6&6! c0B&Y! <.46&/:54Y! E@B.B.Y! I*4&! 9*6@&Y! I/.*/*&! \*46:! >.:*45Y! 9&6! ,;*/)! .46! ,;./A:!

>5/4&/#!!!

!

G;&! :.-AB&! 5L! /&:A546&4):! H.:! :&B&')&6! P0! +*/)(&! 5L! );&*/! A/&:&4'&! *4! );&! ./&.:! :(/+&0&6!

.)!);&!)*-&!);&!*4)&/+*&H&/!H.:!A/&:&4)!*4!);5:&!./&.:#!!G;&!:.-AB&!6*6!45)!*4'B(6&!A&5AB&!

!"("!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 9 of 47 PageID #: 1824
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
+),-%'B3>D''<%&I"#H%#$'+JI%&'

F3C!&-AB50&&!

_.P5/&/!!

>CI!5LL&/!H5/M&/!

<&4!.46!H5-&4!54!);&!:)/&&)!

>.:*45!&-AB50&&:!

R54A/5L*)!&%&'()*+&!

>.:*45!@(&:):!

I(PB*'!:&/+*'&!/&'*A*&4):!

>;(/';!B&.6&/!

9&'/&.)*54!A/5@/.-!A./)*'*A.4):!

>5BB&@&!:)(6&4):!

,';55B!-.*4)&4.4'&!H5/M&/:!

>(:)5-&/:!*4!'54+&4*&4'&!:)5/&!

,&4*5/!-&.B!/&'*A*&4):!

?*:.PB&6!+&)&/.4!

<5);&/:!5L!:-.BB!';*B6/&4!

?*:)/*')!).:M!L5/'&!-&-P&/:!

,)5/&!'B&/M:!

N*/&!L*@;)&/:!

,)5/&!5H4&/!

K5-&B&::!A&5AB&!

G/*P.B!.6-*4*:)/.)5/!

K5:A*).B!.6-*4*:)/.)5/!

U*BB.@&!/&:*6&4):!

K5:A*).B!H5/M&/:!

\5-&4!65*4@!B.(46/0!.)!A(PB*'!L.'*B*)0!

K5)&B!5H4&/!

!

!

G;*:!:.-AB*4@!)&';4*X(&!A/56('&6!.!H*6&! 6*:)/*P()*54!5L!/&:A546&4)!.@&!@/5(A:#!! !N*@(/&!

8#"! P&B5H! :;5H:! .! ;*:)5@/.-! 5L! );&! 6*:)/*P()*54! 5L! /&:A546&4)! .@&Y! .B54@! H*);! .! @/.A;*'!

/&A/&:&4)*4@!H;.)!H5(B6!P&!.!45/-.B!`P&BBZ:;.A&6a!'(/+&!L5/!);*:!6*:)/*P()*54#!!C:!54&!'.4!

:&&!L/5-!N*@(/&!8#"Y!*46*+*6(.B!/&:A546&4):!/&A/&:&4)!.!B./@&!'/5::!:&')*54!5L!.@&!@/5(A:#!!!

'

'

'

!")"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 10 of 47 PageID #: 1825
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !
./*01%'B32D''<%&I"#H%#$';*%'

! !

,*-*B./B0Y! );&! @&46&/! 5L! /&:A546&4):! :;5H:! @556! /&A/&:&4).)*54! 5L! A&5AB&! B*+*4@! *4!

,;.4454!>5(4)0#!!>(//&4)![#,#!>&4:(:!L*@(/&:!&:)*-.)&!);.)!7V#T!A&/'&4)!5L!'5(4)0!/&:*6&4):!

./&!H5-&4#2!!G;&!:.-AB&!5L!,;.4454!>5(4)0!/&:*6&4):!*4'B(6&6!72!A&/'&4)!H5-&4#!!!

!

C''5/6*4@!)5!);&!2V"V![#,#!>&4:(:Y!);&/&!H.:!54B0!:B*@;)!+./*.)*54!*4!);&!/.'*.B!-.M&Z(A!5L!

);*:!:.-AB&!5L!,;.4454!>5(4)0!/&:*6&4):#!!G;&!'(//&4)!:.-AB&!*4'B(6&6!S8#=!A&/'&4)!R.)*+&!

/&:A546&4):! .46! );&! 2V"V! >&4:(:! :(@@&:)&6! );.)! S=! A&/'&4)! 5L! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! H.:!

R.)*+&#!!G;&!(46&//&A/&:&4).)*54!5L!R.)*+&!'5(4)0!/&:*6&4):!*4!);*:!:)(60!/&:(B)&6!L/5-!.4!

5+&//&A/&:&4).)*54!5L!FB.'MY!K*:A.4*'!.46!C:*.4!/&:A546&4):#!!,)*BBY!);&!:*-*B./B0!5L!);&!)H5! ǯ      Z(A! H.:! &%)/&-&B0! :)/54@! `:&&! G.PB&! 8#8!

P&B5H#a!!'

'

'

'

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2!N/5-![,!>&4:(:!D(*'M!N.'):!H&P:*)&!.)!!;))AWddX(*'ML.'):#'&4:(:#@5+dXL6d:).)&:d1=d1=""8#;)-B!`_.:)! .''&::&6!](4&!27Y!2V"2a#!!!
!"*"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 11 of 47 PageID #: 1826

F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !
+),-%'B3BD''901K%J'<%&I"#H%#$'<)E/)-':)L%M0I' '

''

9F)##"#'!"0#$J' >N2N'69'!%#&0&'

<)E%'

901K%J'(%1E%#$' O01%)0'(%1E%#$B'

'

'

'

\;*)&!

2#=!

2#S!

!

R.)*+&!

S8#=!

S=!

!

FB.'M!

"#8!

V#"!

!

K*:A.4*'!

"#8!

V#S!

!

!

!

!

C:*.4!

"#8!

V#"!

!

G5).B!

"VV#V!

"VV!

!

!

G;&! P&4&L*):! 5L! '54+&4*&4'&! :.-AB*4@! *4'B(6&! .! B5H! '5:)! .46! &LL*'*&4)! -.44&/! )5! '5BB&')! .!

:.-AB&! 5L! .! A5A(B.)*54#! ! \;&4! '5-A./&6! H*);! A/5P.P*B*)0! :.-AB*4@! )&';4*':Y! '54+&4*&4'&!

:.-AB*4@! &4.PB&:! .! /&:&./';&/! )5! .';*&+&! .! 6&:*/&6! :.-AB&! *4! .! /&B.)*+&B0! L.:)! .46!

*4&%A&4:*+&! H.0#! ! Q*+&4! );&! 6*:)/*P()*54! 5L! /&:A546&4)! /.'&Y! @&46&/Y! .@&! .46!

:5'*5&'545-*'!:).46*4@Y!*)!*:!P&B*&+&6!);.)!);&!'(//&4)!:.-AB&!5L!,;.4454!>5(4)0!/&:*6&4):!

*:! P/5.6B0! /&A/&:&4).)*+&! 5L! '5(4)0! /&:*6&4):! .46! '.4! P&! /&B*&6! (A54! )5! @&4&/.)&! .''(/.)&!

'54'B(:*54:!.P5()!+5)*4@!P&;.+*5/!.46!A/&L&/&4'&:!5L!'5(4)0!/&:*6&4):#!!!!

!

G;&! :(/+&0! *4'B(6&6! .! P.B.4'&! 5L! 45-*4.B! .46! 5/6*4.B! X(&:)*54:Y! .:M*4@! /&:A546&4):! )5! ǮǡǯǮǡǯǮ3!ǯǯ :).)&-&4):!54!.!7ZA5*4)!_ǡǮǯǮǡǯ

5/6*4.B! X(&:)*54:#! ! G;&/&! H.:! 54&! 5A&4Z&46&6! X(&:)*54! L5BB5H*4@! .! 45-*4.B! X(&:)*54!

.:M*4@! *L! /&:A546&4):! H&/&! ;&:*).4)! )5! +5)&! *4! N.BB! 9*+&/! >5(4)0#! ! F&0546! );*:! 5A&4Z&46&6!

X(&:)*54Y! );&! :(/+&0! H.:! 6&:*@4&6! )5! A/56('&! 6&:'/*A)*+&! :).)*:)*':#! ! G;&! :(/+&0! H.:!

6&:*@4&6! )5! *6&4)*L0! H;.)! /&:A546&4):! L&B)Y! 45)! H;0#! ! C4! (46&/:).46*4@! 5L! H;0! ,;.4454!

>5(4)0!/&:*6&4):! L&B)!);&!H.0!);&0!6*6!H.:! /&:&/+&6!L5/!);&! -5/&! X(.B*).)*+&!L5'(:!@/5(A!

/&:&./';!6&:*@4&6!)5!:(AAB&-&4)!);&!:(/+&0!/&:&./';#!!G;&!:(/+&0!6*6!45)!'5BB&')!A&/:54.B!

*6&4)*L*'.)*54!6.).!L5/!);&!/&:A546&4):!*4!5/6&/!)5!-.*4).*4!);&!.4540-*)0!5L!/&:A546&4):#!!

G;&!:(/+&0Y!*4!*):!&4)*/&)0Y!*:!A/&:&4)&6!*4!CAA&46*%!C!5L!);*:!/&A5/)#!!!

!

34! .66*)*54! )5! );&! :(/+&0Y! .! L5'(:! @/5(A! H.:! '546(')&6! H*);! &B*)&! -&-P&/:! 5L! );&! E@B.B.!

,*5(%! G/*P&#! ! ,*-*B./! )5! );&! :(/+&0Y! );&! L5'(:! @/5(A! /&:&./';! -.*4).*4&6! );&! .4540-*)0! 5L!

A./)*'*A.4):Y!);5(@;!*)!*:!A5::*PB&!)5!/&A5/)!);.)!&.';!L5'(:!@/5(A!-&-P&/!;&B6!.!A5:*)*54!5L!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8!3P*6#!!!
!

!"+,"!"

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 12 of 47 PageID #: 1827
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
P3''!@6?+='A4:@Q<;(C7!'<496R+9' !
C#!9&:&./';!D(&:)*54!E4&!
G;&! L*/:)! /&:&./';! X(&:)*54! L5/! );*:! /&A5/)! L5'(:&6! 54! H;&);&/! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4:!./&!.!:(LL*'*&4)B0!B./@&!.46!@&5@/.A;*'.BB0!'5-A.')!@/5(A!'54:)*)()*4@!.!-.^5/*)0!*4! ,;.4454!>5(4)0#!!G;&!.4:H&/!)5!);.)!X(&:)*54!*:!(4&X(*+5'.BB0!0&:#!!!
C''5/6*4@!)5!);&!-5:)!/&'&4)![#,#!>&4:(:!F(/&.(!&:)*-.)&:Y!);&!)5).B!A5A(B.)*54!5L!,;.4454! >5(4)0!*:!&%A&')&6!)5!P&!"8YS2O#1!!G;.)!4(-P&/!H.:!(A!2#7!A&/'&4)!L/5-!);&!2V"V!'&4:(:Y! H;*';! &:)*-.)&6! );&! '5(4)0! A5A(B.)*54! .)! "8Y7O=#! 7! G;&! -5:)! /&'&4)! '&4:(:! &:)*-.)&:! A()! );&!R.)*+&!A5A(B.)*54!5L!,;.4454!>5(4)0!.)!S2#1!A&/'&4)Y!5/!"2Y778#!!!
G;&! A&/'&4).@&! 5L! R.)*+&! /&:*6&4):! *4! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! *:! );&! ;*@;&:)! R.)*+&! A&/'&4).@&! 5L! .40! ,5();! ?.M5).! '5(4)0#! ! G;&! 4&%)! ;*@;&:)! R.)*+&! A5A(B.)*54! A&/'&4).@&! 5L! .40! ,5();! ?.M5).!'5(4)0!*:!G566!>5(4)0!.)!O=#=!A&/'&4)#!!G;&!);*/6!;*@;&:)!R.)*+&!'5(4)0!A5A(B.)*54! *:! L5(46! *4! F(LL.B5! >5(4)0Y! H;*';! ;.:! .4! OV#7! A&/'&4)! R.)*+&! A5A(B.)*54#! ! G;&! 4&%)! )H5! ;*@;&:)!A&/'&4)!R.)*+&!'5(4)*&:Y!?&H&0!.46!e*&P.';Y!H&/&!)*&6!.)!T8#"!A&/'&4)#!!!
\*);! .! R.)*+&! A5A(B.)*54! A&/'&4).@&! .P5+&! SV! A&/'&4)Y! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! *:! );&! -5:)! '5-A.')!R.)*+&!'5(4)0!*4!);&!&4)*/&!4.)*54#!!!34!L.')Y!);&/&!./&!54B0!.!L&H!'5(4)*&:!.'/5::!);&! &4)*/&! 4.)*54! 'B5:&! )5! );&! R.)*+&! A5A(B.)*54! A&/'&4).@&! 5L! ,;.4454! >5(4)0#! ! E():*6&! 5L! ,5();!?.M5).Y!,*5(%!>5(4)0!*4!R5/);!?.M5).Y!H*);!O"#T!A&/'&4)! R.)*+&!A5A(B.)*54Y!=!*:!);&! -5:)! '5-A.')! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4! '5(4)0! *4! R5/);! ?.M5).#! ! <'c*4B&0! >5(4)0! *4! R&H! <&%*'5Y!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!2V""!A5A(B.)*54!&:)*-.)&!L5/!,;.4454!>5(4)0Y!,5();!?.M5).!.:!/&A5/)&6!P0!);&![,!>&4:(:!F(/&.(Y!,).)&!f! >5(4)0!D(*'MN.'):Y!.+.*B.PB&!.)!;))AWddX(*'ML.'):#'&4:(:#@5+dXL6d:).)&:d1=d1=""8#;)-B!`B.:)!.''&::&6!](B0!"Y! 2V"2a#!!! 7!!"#$%!!! =! ǲǣʹͲͲͲǡǳ ʹͲͲʹ F(/&.(Y!.+.*B.PB&!.)!;))AWddHHH#'&4:(:#@5+dA/56d2VV2A(P:d'2MP/V"Z"7#A6L!`B.:)!.''&::&6!](B0!"Y!2V"2a#!!!
!"++"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 13 of 47 PageID #: 1828
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! ! H*);!.!R.)*+&!A5A(B.)*54!5L!T1#=YT!*:!);&!;*@;&:)!A&/'&4)!R.)*+&!'5(4)0!*4!R&H!<&%*'5#!!G;&! 4&%)! ;*@;&:)! A&/'&4)! R.)*+&! '5(4)0! *4! R&H! <&%*'5! *:! >*P5B.! >5(4)0! .)! 1"! A&/'&4)#O! ! 34! C/*J54.Y!CA.';&!>5(4)0!`O"#Tg!R.)*+&Sa!*:!);&!-5:)!'5-A.')!R.)*+&!'5(4)0Y!H*);!);&!4&%)! ;*@;&:)! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4! '5(4)0! `R.+.;5a! /&.';*4@! 54B0! 18#1! A&/'&4)! `,&&! N*@(/&! 1#"! P&B5H#a!!!!!
'
./*01%'P32D'';S%1/E)#'7#H/)#'!"0#$J'("I0-)$/"#'(%1E%#$)*%&'
!

!
' F#!9&:&./';!D(&:)*54!GH5!

G;&! :&'546! /&:&./';! X(&:)*54! L5/! );*:! A/5^&')! *:! H;&);&/! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4:!./&!A5B*)*'.BB0!'5;&:*+&#!!C@.*4Y!);&!.4:H&/!)5!);.)!X(&:)*54!*:!0&:#!!!

C''5/6*4@! )5! ,5();! ?.M5).! ,&'/&)./0! 5L! ,).)&! 2V"V! @&4&/.B! &B&')*54! /&:(B):Y! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! ;.6! );&! ;*@;&:)! A&/'&4)! +5)&/! /&@*:)/.)*54! L5/! );&! ?&-5'/.)*'! A./)0! 5L! .BB! ,5();!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
T!!"#$%!! O!!"#$%! S!!"#$%!!! ! ! !
!

!"+#"!"

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 14 of 47 PageID #: 1829
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! ! ?.M5).! '5(4)*&:#! ! G;*:! A&/'&4).@&! H.:! TT#72! A&/'&4)#! "V! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! H.:! L5BB5H&6! P0! 5);&/! R.)*+&! '5(4)*&:! 5L! F(LL.B5! `T7#1OgaY! G566! `T"#TVgaY! ?&H&0! `=O#"Sga! .46! e*&P.';! `="#V"ga! .:! );&! '5(4)*&:! H*);! );&! ;*@;&:)! A&/'&4).@&! 5L! ?&-5'/.)*'! I./)0! +5)&/! /&@*:)/.)*54#""!!!

,*-*B./!L*46*4@:!H&/&!5P:&/+&6!L5/!@&4&/.B!&B&')*54!/&:(B):!*4!2V"V!.46!*4!A/&+*5(:!&B&')*54! 0&./:#! ! 34! );&! 2V"V! /.'&! L5/! Q5+&/45/! .46! _)#! Q5+&/45/Y! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! 6&B*+&/&6! );&! ;*@;&:)!A&/'&4).@&!+5)&!L5/!);&!?&-5'/.)*'!I./)0!'.46*6.)&:!*4!);&!:).)&#!!E()!5L!);&!2Y8O2! +5)&:!'.:)!P0!,;.4454!>5(4)0!'*)*J&4:Y!O2#21!A&/'&4)!H&/&!'.:)!L5/!?&-5'/.):!K&*6&A/*&-! .46!C/46)#"2!

G;&! :(AA5/)! L5/! );&! ?&-5'/.)*'! '.46*6.)&! L5/! [#,#! K5(:&! 5L! 9&A/&:&4).)*+&:! H.:! &+&4! ;*@;&/! .-54@! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! +5)&/:#! ! 34! 2V"VY! SV#2S! A&/'&4)! 5L! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! '*)*J&4:! +5)&6! L5/! ?&-5'/.)! ,)&A;.4*&! K&/:&);#! ! C@.*4Y! );*:! H.:! );&! ;*@;&:)! A&/'&4).@&! :(AA5/)! 5L! .40! '5(4)0! *4! );&! :).)&#! ! G;&! 4&%)! ;*@;&:)! A&/'&4).@&! +5)&! L5/! );&! ?&-5'/.)*'! K5(:&! '.46*6.)&!H.:!TT#1O!A&/'&4)!*4!F/5H4!>5(4)0#"8!

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

!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"V! ǲ ǡǳͳͶǤ+.*B.PB&!.)! ;))AWdd:6:5:#@5+d'54)&4)d;)-Bd&B&')*54:d&B&')+5)&/A6L:d2V""d,5();g2V?.M5).g2VELL*'*.Bg2V$B&')*54g 2V9&)(/4:g2V.46g2V9&@*:)/.)*54g2V2V"V#A6L!`_.:)!.''&::&6!](4&!2=Y!2V"2a!! ""!!"#$%! "2!!$%!.)!A.@&!"=! "8!!$%!.)!A.@&!"7#!!! "1!N/5-!;))AWdd&4#H*M*A&6*.#5/@dH*M*d,;.4454h>5(4)0Yh,5();h?.M5).!`B.:)!.''&::&6!](4&!27Y!2V"2a#!!!
!"+$"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 15 of 47 PageID #: 1830
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! ! >#!9&:&./';!D(&:)*54!G;/&&!
ǡǲ?5!\;*)&:!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0!+5)&!:(LL*'*&4)B0! .:!.!PB5'!)5!&4.PB&!*)!)5!(:(.BB0!6&L&.)!);&!A/&L&//&6!'.46*6.)&!5L!C-&/*'.4!346*.4:bǳ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ͳͲ    ǯ  Ǥ   ǡ      ǡ  -&-P&/:! 5L! );&! -.^5/*)0! /.'*.B! @/5(A! *4! );&! :).)&Y! H5(B6! P&! .PB&! )5! 6&L&.)! );&! A/&L&//&6! '.46*6.)&! 5L! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4:#! ! G;*:! -.0! P&! H;0! );&! ,).)&! _&@*:B.)(/&! ;.:! .))&-A)&6! )5! L(/);&/! '5-A.')! );*:! '5--(4*)0! *4)5! .! :*4@B&! +5)*4@! 6*:)/*')! :5! );.)! 5);&/! P5/6&/*4@! 6*:)/*'):!H*BB!P&!-5/&!'5-A&)*)*+&!L5/!'.46*6.)&:!A/&L&//&6!P0!454Z346*.4:#"7!!!
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`2VV1! .46! 2VV=#a! ! N5/! [#,! ,&4.)&Y! );&! A/&L&//&6! '.46*6.)&! ;.:! A/&+.*B&6! 54'&! *4! );/&&! &B&')*54:! `2VV2#a! ! N5/! [#,#! I/&:*6&4)Y! );&! A/&L&//&6! '.46*6.)&! ;.:! 45)!5P).*4&6!.!-.^5/*)0!5L!);&!:).)&!+5)&!*4!)H5!&B&')*54:#!!C)!);&!:).)&!B&+&BY!);&!A/&L&//&6! '.46*6.)&:! 5L! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! +5)&/:! L5/! :).)&ZH*6&! 5LL*'&! ;.+&! 45)! P&&4! :(''&::L(B! *4! );&!  Ǥ  ǡ       ǯ! :)/54@B0! '54'&4)/.)&6! ?&-5'/.)*'! +5)&#! ! 34! );&! A.:)! )&4! 0&./:Y! 54B0! 9&A(PB*'.4! I./)0! '.46*6.)&:! ;.+&! ;&B6! :).)& Z H*6&!5LL*'&#!!
C-&/*'.4! 346*.4:! ;.+&! ;.6! :(''&::! &B&')*4@! A/&L&//&6! '.46*6.)&:! )5! );&! :).)&! B&@*:B.)(/&#!! G;*:!*:!.4!&%A&')&6!/&:(B)!@*+&4!);&!;*@;B0!'5-A.')!4.)(/&!5L!);&*/!&B&')5/.B!6*:)/*')#!!9&'&4)!          ǯ ʹ͹);! 6*:)/*')! *:! 45)! )5! );&! P&4&L*)!5L!R.)*+&!+5)&/:#!!<.40!.6+5'.)&:!5L!C-&/*'.4!346*.4! +5)*4@!/*@;):!;.+&!-.*4).*4! );.)! );&! :).)&! 5+&/! A.'M&6! ?*:)/*')! 2T! L5/! );&! A(/A5:&! 5L! 6*B()*4@! R.)*+&! +5)*4@! *4! .6^.'&4)! 6*:)/*'):#! ! G;5(@;! *)! *:! A5::*PB&! L5/! R.)*+&! +5)&/:! *4! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! )5! .6+.4'&! );&*/! A/&L&//&6!'.46*6.)&:!)5!);&!:).)&!B&@*:B.)(/&Y!);&/&!;.:!P&&4!@/&.)!L/(:)/.)*54!5+&/!4.)(/&!5L! ;5H!);.)!6*:)/*')!H.:!6/.H4!(46&/!/&'&4)!6*:)/*')*4@!AB.4:#!!G;&!'54'&/4:!L5/!5+&/!A.'M*4@! R.)*+&!+5)&/:!*4!?*:)/*')!2T!/&:(B)&6!*4!);/&&!:&A./.)&!B.H:(*):!*4!);&!&./B0!A./)!5L!);&!A.:)! 6&'.6&!`2VV"!.46!2VV2a#!!G;&:&!+5)*4@!/*@;):!'.:&:!H&/&!H54!P0!AB.*4)*LL:!./@(*4@!);.)!);&! 2VV"! 6*:)/*')*4@! AB.4! P0! );&! :).)&! ;.6! 6*B()&6! R.)*+&! +5)*4@! /*@;):! *4!6*:)/*'):! .6^.'&4)! )5! ?*:)/*')!2T#!!34!2VV7Y!);&!L&6&/.B!'5(/):!5/6&/&6!';.4@&:!);.)!/&6/&H!?*:)/*'):!2TY!2=!.46!2"! ʹ͹ǯR.)*+&!6&-5@/.A;*'#!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"7!ǲǣͳͻͺʹZʹͲͲ͸ǡǳʹͲͲ͸ǡǤǤ!
!"+%"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 16 of 47 PageID #: 1831
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! ! G;&!,5();!?.M5).!_&@*:B.)(/&!54'&!.@.*4!.B)&/&6!?*:)/*')!2T!*4!2V""Y!.66*4@!.!/(/.B!A./)!5L! &.:)&/4! I&44*4@)54! >5(4)0! )5! );&! /&'&4)B0! /&'54:)*)()&6! 6*:)/*')! @/5(A*4@! 5L! ,;.4454Y! F&44&))Y! ].'M:54! .46! K..M54! '5(4)*&:#! ! G;&! *4)&4)! 5L! );*:! ';.4@&! H.:! )5! P/*4@! );&! A5A(B.)*54!5L!);&!6*:)/*')!(A!)5!H*);*4!"V!A&/'&4)!5L!);&!*6&.B!6*:)/*')!:*J&Y!H;*';!*4'/&.:&6! :B*@;)B0!*4!);&!H.M&!5L!@/5H);!*4!);&!&.:)&/4!A./)!5L!);&!:).)&#!!34!2VV"Y!);&!*6&.B!6*:)/*')!:*J&! H.:! 2"Y7=TY! H;*';! ;.6! @/5H4! )5! 28Y2=2! *4! 2V""#! ! G;*:! ';.4@&! H.:! :(P-*))&6! L5/! A/&'B&./.4'&!)5!);&![,!?&A./)-&4)!5L!](:)*'&Y!H;*';!:(P:&X(&4)B0!.AA/5+&!);&!';.4@&#!!!
34! :(--./0Y! *)!          ǯ   R.)*+&! +5)*4@! PB5'M:#! ! E4&! '.4! 54B0! :(/-*:&! );.)! );*:! ;.:! P&&4! 654&! L5/! );&! A(/A5:&! 5L! B&::&4*4@! );&! A5B*)*'.B! *4LB(&4'&! 5L! ?&-5'/.)*'! +5)&/:! *4! );&! B./@&B0! 9&A(PB*'.4! :).)&#! ! Q*+&4! );.)! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! *:! );&! -5:)! '5-A.')! .46! '5;&:*+&! R.)*+&! .46! ?&-5'/.)*'! I./)0! '5(4)0Y! *)! *:! 45)! :(/A/*:*4@! );.)! *)! ;.:! P&&4! )*&6! (A! *4! );*:! '54LB*')! L5/! :5-&! )*-&#! ! ! 34! );&! :&/*&:! 5L! /&'&4)! '.:&:! *4+5B+*4@! CBL/&6! F54&! ,;*/)! `&)#Y! .B#a! .@.*4:)! ]50'&! K.J&B)*4&Y! *4! ;&/! 5LL*'*.B! '.A.'*)0!.:!,&'/&)./0!5L!,).)&!5L!,5();!?.M5).Y!`&)#Y!.B#aY!);&!L&6&/.B!'5(/):!6&)&/-*4&6!);.)! );&!AB.*4)*LL:!;.6!-&)!);&!P(/6&4!5L!);&!);*/6!Q*4@B&:!A/&'546*)*54#!!F.:&6!54!);.)!L*46*4@Y! .46!);&! A(PB*'!;*:)5/0!5L!,;.4454!>5(4)0!+5)*4@! P&;.+*5/!.46!,5();!?.M5).!/&6*:)/*')*4@! AB.4:Y!54&!*:!'5-A&BB&6!)5!.@/&&!);.)!&.';!5L!);&!);/&&!Q*4@B&:!A/&'546*)*54:!./&!:.)*:L*&6!*4! );&!'.:&!5L!F/55M:Y!&)!.B#!+#!Q.4)#!&)!.B#!!
!
T3' ' <;!7;R' (@R;<7U;+7@?' ;?A' C79+@<=' @.' A79!<7:7?;+7@?' ;Q;7?9+' ;:4<7!;?' 7?A7;?9'7?'9@6+C'A;V@+;'4R4!+7@?93'''
C#!9&:&./';!D(&:)*54!N5(/!
G;&!L5(/);!/&:&./';!X(&:)*54!L5/!);*:!A/5^&')!.:M:!H;&);&/!+5)*4@!*4!,5();!?.M5).!&B&')*54:! ./&!/.'*.BB0!A5B./*J&6#!!G;&!&%A&').)*54Y!5/!;0A5);&:*:Y!L5/!);*:!A5/)*54!5L!);&!.4.B0:*:!*:!);.)! .:! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4! A5A(B.)*54! A&/'&4).@&! *4'/&.:&:Y! );&! +5)&! -./@*4! 5L! ?&-5'/.)*'! '.46*6.)&:!.B:5!*4'/&.:&:#!!
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
!"+&"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 17 of 47 PageID #: 1832

F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! ! :).)&ZH*6&!5LL*'&:#!!G5!:*-AB*L0!);*:!.4.B0:*:Y!5()'5-&:!*4!:).)&ZH*6&!/.'&:!L5/!,5();!?.M5).! '54:)*)()*54.B! 5LL*'&:! H&/&! *46&%&6! )5! '/&.)&! .! :*4@B&! -&.:(/&! 5L! :).)&! 5LL*'&! A./)*:. 4! +5)&! -./@*4#!!!

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`.46!4.)*54#a!!G;*:!H5/M:!)5!A5B./*J&! +5)*4@!P&;.+*5/!-5/&!);.4!54&!H5(B6!&%A&')!*4!);&!.+&/.@&!@&5@/.A;*'!'5--(4*)0#!!!3)!-.0! .B:5! P&! .! L(4')*54! 5L! ;*:)5/*'! )&4:*54:! 5L! R.)*+&! .46! \;*)&! '5--(4*)*&:! *4! ,5();! ?.M5).Y! H;*';!./&! H&BB!45)&6!L5/!);&*/!B.'M!5L!'5BB.P5/.)*54! *4!.! H*6&Z/.4@&! 5L!A(PB*'!.46!A/*+.)&! .LL.*/:#!!E4&!H5(B6!&%A&')!);&:&!;*:)5/*'!)&4:*54:!)5!'54)/*P()&!)5!54@5*4@!*4:(B./*)0!5L!);&! C-&/*'.4!346*.4!'5--(4*)0!*4!);&!:).)&! Ȃ!.!'546*)*54!);.)!*:!/&@/&)).PB&!)5!-.40!*4!P5);! R.)*+&!.46!\;*)&!'5--(4*)*&:#!!!

G;&! L.')! );.)! );*:! /&B.)*54:;*A! *:! :).)*:)*'.BB0! :*@4*L*'.4)! .)! );&! #VVV! B&+&B! :(@@&:):! );.)! );*:! /&B.)*54:;*A!*:!&%)/&-&B0!:).PB&#!!Q*+&4!);&!:*@4*L*'.4'&!5L!);*:!/&B.)*54:;*AY!54&!H5(B6!45)! &%A&')!);*:!'5//&B.)*54!)5!;.+&!/&:(B):!L/5-!';.4'&!5/Y!@*+&4!*):!:)/&4@);Y!L/5-!.!454Z/.'&Z /&B.)&6!L.')5/#!! 3)! :&&-:!'B&./!);.)!+5)&/!/&@*:)/.)*54!*:! /.'*.BB0!A5B./*J&6!*4!,5();!?.M5).! A5B*)*':#!!!

!

!

!"+'"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 18 of 47 PageID #: 1833
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! ! !
+),-%'T32D''!"11%-)$/"#'<%&0-$&'W"1'?)$/K%'("I0-)$/"#')#H' 8"$%1'<%*/&$1)$/"#'

Native Population Percentage

Native Population Percentage
Democratic Party Registration

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

1
66 .752** .000
66

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Democratic Party
Registration .752** .000 66 1
67

G;&! :&'546! '5//&B.)*54! )&:)! &%.-*4&6! );&! .::5'*.)*54! P&)H&&4! R.)*+&! A5A(B.)*54! A&/'&4).@&!.)!);&!'5(4)0!B&+&B!.46!.@@/&@.)&!'.46*6.)&!A&/L5/-.4'&!*4!:).)&!'54:)*)()*54.B! /.'&:!`*#&#Y!Q5+&/45/d_)#!Q5+&/45/Y!,&'/&)./0!5L!,).)&Y!C))5/4&0!Q&4&/.BY!,).)&!C(6*)5/Y!,).)&! G/&.:(/&/Y!>5--*::*54&/!5L!,';55B!.46!I(PB*'!_.46:Y!.46!I(PB*'![)*B*)*&:!>5--*::*54a#!G;&! *46&%&6!-&.:(/&!5L!.@@/&@.)&!'.46*6.)&!A&/L5/-.4'&!'5-P*4&6!&.';!5L!);&:&!/.'&:!L5/!);&! 2V"V! ,5();! ?.M5).! &B&')*54Y! L5'(:*4@! 54! );&! A&/'&4)! :(AA5/)! 5L! ?&-5'/.)*'! '.46*6.)&:#!! ,)(60*4@!);&!:(AA5/)!L5/!9&A(PB*'.4!'.46*6.)&:!H5(B6!;.+&!;.6!);&!:.-&!:).)*:)*'.B!*-A.')! 54!);&!'5//&B.)*54!+.B(&:!5P:&/+&6!L5/!);*:!/&B.)*54:;*A#!!!

K&/&Y! );&! /&B.)*54:;*A! H.:! &+&4! :)/54@&/! );.4! 5P:&/+&6! *4! );&! ./&.! 5L! A./)0! *6&4)*L*'.)*54Y! H*);! .! '5//&B.)*54! '5&LL*'*&4)! 5L! #TTV! );.)! H.:! :*@4*L*'.4)! .)! );&! #VVV! B&+&B! `,&&! G.PB&! 7#2! P&B5Ha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

!

!

!"+("!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 19 of 47 PageID #: 1834
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !
+),-%'T3>D'!"11%-)$/"#'<%&0-$&'W"1'?)$/K%'("I0-)$/"#')#H' ;**1%*)$%H'9"0$F'A)L"$)'!"#&$/$0$/"#)-'@WW/E%1'8"$%':)1*/#'

Native Population Percentage

Native Population Percentage

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

South Dakota Candidate Performance

N Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

N

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

1
66 .770**
.000 66

Democratic Candidate Performance
.770**
.000 66 1
66

G;*:!)0A&!5L!/&B.)*54:;*A!`*#&#Y!&%)/&-&B0!:)/54@!'5//&B.)*54!.46!:*@4*L*'.4'&a!H5(B6!45)!P&! &%A&')&6!L5/!);&!\;*)&!'5--(4*)0!*4!);&!:).)&#!!Q*+&4!);&!L.')!);.)!\;*)&:!-.M&!(A!.!B./@&! -.^5/*)0! 5L! '5(4)0! /&:*6&4):! );/5(@;5()! );&! :).)&Y! H*);! );&! &%'&A)*54! 5L! .! ;.46L(B! 5L! -.^5/*)0Z-*45/*)0!'5(4)*&:!`*#&#Y!,;.4454Y!F(LL.B5Y!?&H&0Y!e*&P.';Y!G566Ya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
F#!9&:&./';!D(&:)*54:!N*+&!.46!,*%!
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

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"=!F54&!,;*/)!+#!K.J&B)*4&Y!88=!N#!,(AA#!26#!!
!

!"+)"!"

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 20 of 47 PageID #: 1835
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`E,Ga! *4! ,;.4454! >5(4)0#! ! $.';! 5L! );&:&! -&.:(/&:! 5L! A&/:54.B! .46! '5--(4*)0! 6&L*'*):!     ǯ '.A.'*)0! )5! A/56(')*+&B0! &4@.@&! *4! );&! A5B*)*'.B! A/5'&::! .46! H&*@;:! ;&.+*B0! 54! );&*/! '.A.'*)0! )5!(:&!);&! A5B*)*'.B!A/5'&::!)5!6*/&')!B.H:!*4!.! H.0!);.)!);&*/!'546*)*54! -*@;)!P&! *-A/5+&6#! ! G;&! .+&4(&! 5L! .6+.4'&-&4)! );/5(@;! );&! 6&-5'/.)*'! A/5'&::! :&&-:! 'B5:&6! )5! );&!4.)*+&!'*)*J&4:!5L!,;.4454!>5(4)0!.46!&B:&H;&/&!);/5(@;5()!);&!,).)&!.46!4.)*54#!!!
G;&! X(&:)*54! P&L5/&! (:! 45H! *:! H;&);&/! );&! 6*:'/*-*4.)*54! );.)! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4:! *4! ,;.4454!>5(4)0!.46!);&*/!.4'&:)5/:!;.+&!&%A&/*&4'&6!/&:(B):!*4!.!;&:*).4'0!)5!A./)*'*A.)&! *4!'54)&-A5/./0!&B&')*54:#!!34!A./)*'(B./Y!*)!*:!5(/!'54'&/4!)5!P&))&/!(46&/:).46!;5H!;*:)5/0! .46! /&:(B)*4@! '54)&-A5/./0! '546*)*54:! *4)&/.')! H*);! );&! .6-*4*:)/.)*54! 5L! &B&')*54:! *4! ,;.4454! >5(4)0#! ! \&! (46&/:).46! );.)! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! ;.:! '54:*6&/.PB&! &'545-*'! ';.BB&4@&:!ǲǤǳ ǡ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`5/! '54+&4*&4'&a! +5)*4@! 6*B()&:! );&! +5)*4@! /*@;):! 5L! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4:#! ! G;*:! .46! /&B.)&6! X(&:)*54:! H&/&! .66/&::&6Y! *4! A&/:54Y! H*);! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! /&:*6&4):! 5+&/! );&! '5(/:&! 5L! );/&&! 6.0:! *4! ](4&! 5L! 2V"2#! ! G;&! /&:(B):! 5L! );.)! &LL5/)! ./&!:;./&6!*4!);&!L5BB5H*4@!:&')*54!5L!);*:!/&A5/)#!!!!
X3''9C;??@?'!@6?+='(6OR7!'@(7?7@?'96<84=';?A'.@!69'Q<@6('<496R+9' ' C#!!9&:&./';!D(&:)*54!,&+&4!
,(/+&0! /&:A546&4):! ;.6! .! ;*@;! B&+&B! 5L! A./)*'*A.)*54! *4! );&! &B&')5/.B! A/5'&::#! ! C! B./@&! -.^5/*)0! 5L! );5:&! :(/+&0&6! /&A5/)&6! +5)*4@! *4! );&! B.:)! ,5();! ?.M5).! &B&')*54#! ! >5-A./&6! H*);! .! :).)&ZH*6&! /&A5/)! 5L! .! =2#2T! A&/'&4)! +5)&/! )(/45()! *4! );&! 2V"V! &B&')*54Y"T! =S#2! A&/'&4)! 5L! /&:A546&4):! )5! );&! '(//&4)! :(/+&0! /&A5/)&6! +5)*4@#! ! $+&4! -5/&Y! T=#S! A&/'&4)! /&A5/)&6!+5)*4@!*4!);&!B.:)!)/*P.B!&B&')*54#!!!
  ǡ ͸Ͷ     Ǯǯ  Ǯ   ǡǯ  ͳͶǮǯǮǯȋ ȌǤC!B./@&/!A&/'&4)!  ͹ͺ      Ǯǯ  Ǯ   ǯ   ǡ      ͳͲ    Ǯǯ  Ǯǯ ȋ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"T!N/5-!,5();!?.M5).!,&'/&)./0!5L!,).)&!H&P:*)&!.)! ;))AWdd:6:5:#@5+d'54)&4)d+*&H'54)&4)#.:A%b'.)i&B&')*54:fA@id&B&')*54:dA.:)&B&')*54:h@&4&/.B2V"Vh)(/45( )#:;)-!`_.:)!.''&::&6!](4&!2=Y!2V"2a#!!!
!"+*"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 21 of 47 PageID #: 1836
-0) ./ $) 3 + -/ +* -/ -* * &.7 /: ':71: ) /7 /: ':7 . ) * : $1 HI;L GGJ

$"0- M:H '* 2 :? # ) 0( -* ! -.+* ) ) /. -+* -/$) " /# / /# 4 ) 1 -1* / $) /-$ '

' /$* ) . 2 * 0'

1 ) .( '' -$! 2 * ) .$ - * ) '4 /# * . '$"$ ' /* 1* / $) /-$ '

$,"'&+5,$+,'-*',!'+7&.*8*+('&++%*'%"&"."-$+/!'/*&',

'$"$ ' /* 1* / $) /-$ ' ' /$* ) .:

" ,) :251 + + ' +"& "*+' )/

OQ MQ IIQ
IHQ

'2 4. KJ Q
* ./ * ! /# /$( * ( /$( .
- '4
1 -

" ,) :261 )" $ ' +"& "*+' )/

LQ LQ HIQ
HJ Q

'2 4.

* ./ * ! /#

/$(

ML Q

* ( /$( .

- '4

1 -

. * ) /# $-1* /$) " # $./* -$ .7$/ $. ' -/# / /# 0--) / . ( +' * ! -.+* ) ) /. $. +* '$/$ ''4 ) " " "-* 0+72 '' .$/0 / /* -.+* ) /* ,0 ./$* ) . * 0/ 1* /$) " $) # ) ) * )
* 0) /4: /$''7* ) '4 HP:I + - ) / ( $) * -$/47* -HL -.+* ) ) /. * 0/ * ! /# NO 1 '$ . . !* /# $. ./0 47 -+* -/ 0.$) " -'4 1* /$) " $) +-1$* 0. ! -' ) ./ / ' /$* ) .: / $. $( +* -/ ) / /* ) * / /# / /# $. -.+* ) . * . ) * / $) '0 /# * . !$'$) " . ) / ''* /.7 . $/ 2 .

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 22 of 47 PageID #: 1837
-0) ./ $) 3 + -/ +* -/ -* * &.7 /: ':71: ) /7 /: ':7 . ) * : $1 HI;L GGJ
( 1 -4 ' -/# / /# ,0 ./$* ) + -/ $) /* * ) '4 * ) 1 ) $ ) 1* /$) " $) -'4 1* /$) " '* /$* ) . ) ) * / /# -* 0"# . ) / .0 ( $..$* ) .:
: . -# 0 ./$* ) $"# /
# * . -1 /$* ) /# / * ) '4 ( $) * -$/4 * ! -.+* ) ) /. -+* -/ 0.$) " -'4 1* /$) " /* ./ /# $- ''* / $. 0) .0-+-$.$) " "$1 ) /# '$( $/ ) /0- * ! -'4 1* /$) " $) # ) ) * ) * 0) /4: ( 0 # ' -" -+ - ) / " * ! OK:N7# * 2 1 -7.# - /# $- '$ ! /# / -'4 1* /$) " $. $( +* -/ ) / /* * 0/# &* / ' /$* ) . ) /# / -'4 1* /$) " * 0"# / /* ( . 1 $' ' . +* ..$ ' :
) '4 L :H+ - ) / * ! -.+* ) ) /. $ ) * / "- /# / -'4 1* /$) " 2 . $( +* -/ ) /7 ) ) * /# HG:J + - ) / ) $/# - "- ) * - $. "- 2 $/# /# $( +* -/ ) * ! -'4 1* /$) " >. $"0M:J '* 2 :?

" ,) :27 1 ) % & +. "+! +! *+ + % & +0 )$/ - ' +"& "* "% (' )+ & ++' ' ,+!    
    
 
 


KQ HQ HGQ
J PQ

/-* ) "'4 "-

KMQ

"-

$/# - "- * $. "-
$. "-

/-* ) "'4 $. "-

.$( $' -'4 ' -" + - ) / " * ! -.+* ) ) /. -+* -/ "- ( ) / 2 $/# /# ./ / ( ) / /# / $! -'4 1* /$) " 2 . ( ( * - 1 $' ' $) # ) ) * ) * 0) /47/# 4 2 - ( * - '$& '4 /* 1* / $) ./ / ) ! -' ' /$* ) .: -7KK:P + - ) / ./-* ) "'4 "- 2 $/# /# $. ./ / ( ) / ) JK:M + - ) / "- 7( &$) " !* - /* / ' * ! NP:L + - ) / 2 # * ! '/ /# / -'4 1* /$) " 2 * 0' $) - . /# $-+-* '4 * ! 1* /$) " $) * 0/# &* / >) * / /-$ '? ' /$* ) .:

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 23 of 47 PageID #: 1838
-0) ./ $) 3 + -/ +* -/ -* * &.7 /: ':71: ) /7 /: ':7 . ) * : $1 HI;L GGJ

" ,) :281 ) % & +. "+! +! *+ + % & +0" )$/ - ' +"& . * %

- "$ $ "&

! & & ' & ' ,& +/ . ' ,$ % ' ) $"# $/ +' - ' + "& ' ,+! #' + $ +"' & *

HQ HHQ OQ
JL Q

/-* ) "'4 "KL Q
"-
$/# - "- * $. "$. "-
/-* ) "'4 $. "-

0./ ! 2 -/# ) OG + - ) / * ! -.+* ) ) /. '$ 1 /# 4 2 * 0' ( * - !0''4 + -/$ $+ / $) ./ / ) ) /$* ) ' ' /$* ) .: / $. 1 -4 ' -!-* ( /# * +$) $* ) * ! # ) ) * ) * 0) /4 $/$5 ) . /# / /# $-!0'' + -/$ $+ /$* ) $) * 0/# &* / ' /$* ) . * . # $) " * ) /# +-. ) * ! -'4 1* /$) ":
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&&,"'&$$,"'&+5%'&9+'%,"%+:.',*+3KK5E + - ) / '$ 1 /# 4 2 * 0' ( * - '$& '4 /* 1* / $! -'4 1* /$) " 2 - ( * - 1 $' ' :
# . * +$) $* ) . - /# ( * ./ / ''$) " * ! '' * . -1 /$* ) . $) /# $. -+* -/: / $. ' -!-* ( /# . !$) $) ". /# / /# . ) * ! -'4 1* /$) " $) # ) ) * ) * 0) /4 # . ) " /$1 $( + / * ) /# $) !'0 ) * ! # ) ) * ) * 0) /4 1* / -.: ) '* . ' /$* ) .7 . $) /# IGGI : : ) /
/2 ) $( * # ) .* ) ) * # ) # 0) 7 /# $. * 0' ( ) /# $!! -) $) ) ' /$* ) * 0/ * ( :
: . -# 0 ./$* ) $)
# * ++* -/0) $/4 !* - # ) ) * ) * 0) /4 1* / -. /* /-1 ' /* '' $1 - * 0) /4 /* -'4 1* / +-* 1$ . '$//' -'$ ! !-* ( /# $. 0+. //$) " * ) '0.$* ) : ( %* -$/4 * ! MM:I + - ) / * ! -.+* ) ) /. $ ) * / ! ' /# 4 2 * 0' /-1 ' /* '' $1 - * 0) /4 /* ./ ) -'4 1* / : ) -' / ,0 ./$* ) 72 $/# ) * ++* -/0) $/4 !* -* + ) ; ) * ( ( ) /. * 0/ /# 2 $''$) ") .. /*

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 24 of 47 PageID #: 1839
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! ! +5)&!*4!N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)0Y!*)!H.:!5P:&/+&6!);.)!T1!A&/'&4)!5L!/&:A546&4):!H&/&!;&:*).4)!)5! +5)&! *4! N.BB! 9*+&/! >5(4)0! (46&/! .40! '546*)*54:! Ȃ! &./B0! +5)*4@! 5/! $B&')*54! ?.0! +5)*4@#!! CB);5(@;! 28#1! A&/'&4)! 5L! /&:A546&4):! H&/&! H*BB*4@! )5! +5)&! *4! N.BB! 9*+&/! >5(4)0! .46! 2#=! H&/&! 45)! :(/&Y! );&! B./@&! -.^5/*)0! 5L! /&:A546&4):! H&/&! 45)#! ! >B&./B0Y! );&! -.^5/*)0! 5L! :(/+&0! /&:A546&4):!./&!45)!*4)&/&:)&6!*4!)/.+&B*4@!)5!N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)0!)5!+5)&#!!!
34)&/&:)*4@B0Y! 5L! .BB! );&! '5--(4*)*&:! :(/+&0&6Y! );&! ;*@;&:)! A&/'&4).@&! 5L! );5:&! H*BB*4@! )5! +5)&! *4! N.BB! 9*+&/! >5(4)0! H.:! 5P:&/+&6! L/5-! 9&6! ,;*/)! `7Vg! H*BB*4@aY! H;*';! *:! /&B.)*+&B0! 4&./! )5! K5)! ,A/*4@:Y! );&! +5)*4@! '&4)&/! *4! N.BB! 9*+&/! >5(4)0#! ! 9&6! ,;*/)! /&:A546&4):! ./&! &.:*B0!'54)/.:)&6!54!);*:!A5*4)!H*);!/&:A546&4):!L/5-!<.46&/:54Y!c0B&!5/!&+&4!I*4&!9*6@&#!! $.';!5L!);&:&!'5--(4*)*&:!;.6!B5H&/!4(-P&/:!5L!);5:&!H*BB*4@!)5!+5)&!*4!N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)0! Ȃ! Vg! 5L! <.46&/:54! /&:A546&4):Y! 27g! 5L! c0B&! /&:A546&4):! .46! 2=#"g! 5L! I*4&! 9*6@&! /&:A546&4):#!!!
G;&!/&.:54:!@*+&4!L5/!45)!H.4)*4@!)5!+5)&!*4!N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)0!H&/&!+./*&6Y!P()!);&!B./@&:)! A&/'&4).@&!5L!:).)&6!'54'&/4!H.:!L5/!.!'5-P*4.)*54!5L!);&!6*LL*'(B)0!5L!)/.+&B*4@!);.)!L./!.46! );&!&%A&4:&!.::5'*.)&6!H*);!.!)/*A!)5!N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)0!L5/!+5)*4@#!!G.PB&!=#"!P&B5H!/&A5/):! );&! L/&X(&4'*&:! 5L! *46*+*6(.B! 5A*4*54:! .P5()! +5)*4@! *4! N.BB! 9*+&/! >5(4)0#! G;&! -.40! *46*+*6(.B! /&.:54:! @*+&4! P0! /&:A546&4):! H&/&! '5BB.A:&6! *4)5! L5(/! @&4&/.B! '.)&@5/*&:! 5L! '54'&/4Y! *4'B(6*4@! `"a! );&! 6*:).4'&! .46! &%A&4:&Y! `2a! 6*:)/(:)Y! `8a! A&/'&*+&6! A/&^(6*'&! .@.*4:)!R.)*+&!+5)&/:Y!.46!`1a!);&!A/*4'*A.B!5L!B5'.B!+5)*4@#!!!!!
+),-%'X32D''!"#E%1#&'),"0$'8"$/#*'/#'.)--'</K%1'!"0#$J'

?*:).4'&!.46!$%A&4:&!

8=!

?*:)/(:)!5L!N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)0!ELL*'*.B:!

S!

I&/'&*+&6!I/&^(6*'&!C@.*4:)!R.)*+&!U5)&/:! ""!

I/*4'*A.B!5L!_5'.B!U5)*4@!!

8!

G5).B! 7S! !

="#V2g! "7#27g! "O#=1g! 7#VOg! "VV#VVg!

G;5(@;! );&! 'B&./! -.^5/*)0! 5L! /&:A546&4):! H&/&! '54'&/4&6! .P5()! '5:):! .::5'*.)&6! H*);! )/.+&B*4@! )5! N.BB! 9*+&/! >5(4)0! )5! +5)&Y! );&/&! H&/&! :)/54@! +*&H:! .P5()! );&! H.0! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4:! L/5-!,;.4454! >5(4)0!./&!)/&.)&6!P0!);&!4&*@;P5/*4@!N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)0#!!<.40!5L! );&! *46*+*6(.B:! H;5! /&A5/)&6! P&*4@! ;&:*).4)! .P5()! +5)*4@! *4! N.BB! 9*+&/! >5(4)0! '5--(4*'.)&6!*4)&4:&!4&@.)*+&!5A*4*54:!.P5()!6*:)/(:)!.46!A/&^(6*'&!L/5-!);&!65-*4.4)B0! \;*)&!4&*@;P5/*4@!'5(4)0#"O!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"O!C''5/6*4@!)5!2V"V![,!>&4:(:!&:)*-.)&:Y!,;.4454!.46!N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)*&:!./&!4&./B0!5AA5:*)&:!*4!)&/-:!5L! /.'*.B!'5-A5:*)*54Y!A5+&/)0!.46!&-AB50-&4)!/.)&:Y!.:!:&&4!*4!;))AWdd'&4:(:Z :).)*:)*':#L*46);&6.).#5/@dBd21=Vd,;.4454Z>5(4)0Z,6!.46!;))AWdd'&4:(:Z :).)*:)*':#L*46);&6.).#5/@dBd212TdN.BBZ9*+&/Z>5(4)0Z,6!`B.:)!.''&::&6!=d2Td!2V"2a!
!"#$"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 25 of 47 PageID #: 1840
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! ! G;*:!65&:!45)!-&.4Y!;5H&+&/Y!);.)!)/(:)!L5/!&B&')*54!5LL*'*.B:!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0!H.:!-(';! ;*@;&/#!!34!L.')Y!);&!6*LL&/&4'&!*4!)/(:)!B&+&B:!L5/!&B&')*54!5LL*'*.B:!*4!P5);!'5(4)*&:!H&/&!X(*)&! :-.BB! ZZ! ^(:)! 5+&/! "V! A&/'&4)! -5/&! )/(:)! L5/! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! &B&')*54! 5LL*'*.B:! );.4! N.BB! 9*+&/!&B&')*54!5LL*'*.B:#!!!
G;&!&%A&').)*54!B&.6*4@!*4)5!);*:!:(/+&0!/&:&./';!H.:!);.)!)/(:)!H5(B6!P&!-(';!;*@;&/!L5/! ,;.4454!>5(4)0!&B&')*54!5LL*'*.B:#!!$+&4!);5(@;!)&';4*'.BB0Y!,;.4454!>5(4)0!'54)/.'):!);*:! H5/M! 5()! )5! N.BB! 9*+&/! >5(4)0Y! *)! H.:! &%A&')&6! );.)! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! /&:*6&4):! H5(B6! ;.+&! /&A5/)&6!      ǲǳ    Ǥ ! ! G;*:! &%A&').)*54! H.:! 4.//5HB0! :(AA5/)&6! P0! );*:! /&:&./';#! ! \;*B&! 7"#2O! A&/'&4)! 5L! /&:A546&4):! /&A5/)&6! )/(:)*4@! N.BB! 9*+&/! >5(4)0! &B&')*54! 5LL*'*.B:Y! ="#71! A&/'&4)! 45)&6! )/(:)! L5/! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! &B&')*54!5LL*'*.B:#!!!Q*+&4!);.)!)/(:)!B&+&B:!./&! 54B0!:B*@;)B0!;*@;&/!);.4!6*:)/(:)!B&+&B:Y!.46! );.)! );&! @.A! *4! )/(:)! L5/! P5);! );&! '5(4)*&:! H.:! 54B0! "V#27! A&/'&4)Y! *)! *:! /&.:54.PB&! )5! ǯǤ!
34! :(-Y! );&! 5P:&/+.)*54:! );.)! B5H&/! B&+&B:! 5L! )/(:)! &%*:)! L5/! N.BB! 9*+&/! >5(4)0! $B&')*54! 5LL*'*.B:Y! );.)! ==#"! A&/'&4)! 5L! /&:A546&4):! H5(B6! 45)! P&! H*BB*4@! )5! '.:)! &./B0! P.BB5):! *4! N.BB! 9*+&/!>5(4)0Y!.46!);.)!T1!A&/'&4)!5L!/&:A546&4):!H&/&!;&:*).4)!)5!+5)&!*4!N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)0! (46&/!.40!'*/'(-:).4'&:Y!B&.6:!)5!);&!'54'B(:*54!);.)!);&/&!*:!:&/*5(:!'54'&/4!L5/!,;.4454! >5(4)0! +5)&/:! '.:)*4@! P.BB5):! *4! N.BB! 9*+&/! >5(4)0#! ! G;&! X(&:)*54! /&-.*4:Y! ;5H&+&/Y! *L! );.)! ;&:*).4'0!*:!6(&!)5!A&/'&*+&6!/.'*:-!)5H./6:!C-&/*'.4!346*.4:!*4!N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)0#!!!
C@.*4Y!H;&4!@*+&4!);&!5AA5/)(4*)0!)5!/&A5/)!/&.:54:!L5/!;&:*).)*54!H*);!+5)&/!A./)*'*A.)*54! *4!N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)0!*4!.4!5A&4Z&46&6!X(&:)*54Y!H*);5()!.40!A/*-*4@!5/!6*/&')*54!L/5-!);&! *4)&/+*&H&/Y!81#S!A&/'&4)!5L!/&:A546&4):!/&A5/)&6!;&:*).)*54!6(&!)5!6*:)/(:)!5L!5/!A/&^(6*'&! L/5-! N.BB! 9*+&/! >5(4)0! .6-*4*:)/.)5/:#! ! ?*:)/(:)! .46! A/&^(6*'&! H&/&! .B:5! );&-&:! *4)/56('&6!P0!L5'(:!@/5(A!-&&)*4@!A./)*'*A.4):#!!!!
EP:&/+.)*54:! L/5-! );&! L5'(:! @/5(A! -&&)*4@! 5LL&/&6! @/&.)&/! 6&).*B! );.4! H.:! A5::*PB&! );/5(@;! );&! /&B.)*+&B0! :;5/)! :(/+&0! 6&B*+&/&6! *4! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! *4! ](4&! 5L! 2V"2#! ! \;&4! '5-A./&6! H*);! );&! 2! -*4()&! :(/+&0Y! 6&:*@4&6! )5! P&! P/*&L! )5! -.*4).*4! ;*@;! /&:A54:&! /.)&:Y! );&! SV! -*4()&! L5'(:! @/5(A! -&&)*4@! H*);! =!A5B*)*'.B! &B*)&:! L/5-! );&! /&@*54! .BB5H&6! L5/! L./! -5/&!*4Z6&A);!6*:'(::*54#!!!!
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ǯ            .P5()!;5H!&B&')*54:!./&!'546(')&6!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0#!!!
G;&!65-*4.4)!'54'&/4!.-54@!);5:&!A./)*'*A.)*4@!*4!);&!L5'(:!@/5(A!H.:!45)!/.'*.B!P*.:#!!3)! H.:Y! ;5H&+&/Y! A55/! B&+&B:! 5L! .''5(4).P*B*)0! L5/! .46! &LL&')*+&! .6-*4*:)/.)*54! 5L! ,5();! ?.M5).! &B&')*54:! *4! ,;.4454! >5(4)0#! ! N5'(:! @/5(A! A./)*'*A.4):! /&A5/)&6! );.)! );&0! 4&&6! P&))&/!:(AA5/)!L5/!&B&')5/.B!A./)*'*A.)*54!*4!);&!'5(4)0#!!3)!H.:!6*:'(::&6!);.)!-.40!A&5AB&!
!"#%"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 26 of 47 PageID #: 1841
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! ! ǯ  Y!);.)!'B./*)0!.P5()!);&! B5'.)*54! 5L! $B&')*54!?.0!A5BB*4@! B5'.)*54:!*:!A55/Y!.46!);.)!);&!:(AA5/)!);&0!@&)!L/5-!A5BB!H5/M&/:!*:!&%)/&-&B0!A55/#!
E4&!A./)*'*A.4)!/&B.)&6!.!:)5/0!5L!.4!&B&')*54!H;&/&!;.BL!5L!;&/!L.-*B0!;.6!)5!+5)&!*4!E@B.B.! .46! ;.BL! *4! I*4&! 9*6@&! &+&4! );5(@;! );&! L.-*B0! B*+&:! *4! );&! :.-&! 4&*@;P5/;556#! ! C45);&/! .66&6!)5!);*:! L/(:)/.)*54! P0!45)*4@!);.)!*4!54&!&B&')*54!5LL*'*.B:! :AB*)! );&! A5BB*4@!B5'.)*54:! L5/! L.-*B0! -&-P&/:! /&:*6*4@! *4! );&! :.-&! ;5(:&;5B6#! ! CBB! .@/&&6! );.)! );&! :AB*))*4@! 5L! ;5(:&;5B6:!.46!4&*@;P5/;556:!4&@.)*+&B0!*-A.'):!R.)*+&!+5)&/:ǯ!'.A.'*)0!)5!:;./&!/*6&:!)5! );&!A5BB:Y!H;*';!H.:!(4.4*-5(:B0!.@/&&6!)5!.:!.4!*-A5/).4)!/&:5(/'&!L5/!-.40!/&:&/+.)*54! '5--(4*)0!-&-P&/:#!
G;*:! '54'&/4! H.:! L(/);&/! :(AA5/)&6! P0! .! @&4&/.B! '5--&4)! 5LL&/&6! P0! 54&! :(/+&0! /&:A546&4)!H;5!45)&6!);.)!:;&!6*6!45)!+5)&!*4!);&!B.:)!&B&')*54!P&'.(:&!:;&!'5(B6!45)!L*46! );&!'5//&')!A/&'*4')#!!,;&!H.:!X(5)&6!.:!:).)*4@W!
ǲ               Ǥ    &'$()!)*&'+)+,)+-.&&)/,01+#,'2()','&),3)+-&4)0,..&0+)1'$)*12)',+)1"/&)+,)5,+&%))6-#2)*12) Ǥǳ)
G;*:!);&-&!H.:!&';5&6!P0!.!L5'(:!@/5(A!-&-P&/!H;5!;.6!.!:*-*B./!&%A&/*&4'&#!!G;&! A&/:54!:).)&6W!
ǲ Ǥǳ)
N5'(:!@/5(A!-&-P&/:!P&B*&+&!);.)!);&:&!&%A&/*&4'&:!./&!*BB(:)/.)*+&!5L!);&!B./@&/!A/5PB&-:! .::5'*.)&6! H*);! );&! +5)*4@! &%A&/*&4'&! *4! ,;.4454! >5(4)0#! ! Q/5(A! -&-P&/:! (4.4*-5(:B0! .@/&&6! );.)! 45)! &45(@;! &6('.)*54! .46! )/.*4*4@! @5&:! *4)5! );&! &B&')*54! A/5'&::! *4!,;.4454! >5(4)0#!!!G;&0!L&B)!);*:!H.:!)/(&!5L!P5);!&6('.)*54!L5/!A5BB!H5/M&/:!.46!5L!'*)*J&4!+5)&/:#!!!
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
E4&! L5'(:! @/5(A! -&-P&/! 45)&6! );.)! *)! *:! 45)! :(LL*'*&4)! )5! ^(:)! :;5H! (A! .46! P&'5-&! '54)/*P()*4@!'*)*J&4:#!!34!;&/!+*&HY!:5-&!+5)&/:!4&&6!:(AA5/)!)5!'.:)!);&*/!+5)&#!!E4!H;5B&Y! );&!L5'(:!@/5(A!-&-P&/:!6*6!45)!L&&B!);.)!-.40!A5BB!H5/M&/:!*4!);&!'5(4)0!./&!*4L5/-&6!5/! ;&BAL(B#! ! G5! *BB(:)/.)&! );*:! A5*4)Y! 54&! L5'(:! @/5(A! -&-P&/! P/5(@;)! (A! .4! &%.-AB&! H;&/&! . ! +5)&/!:;&!H.:!H*);!H;5!H.:!H&BB!M45H4!)5!A5BB!H5/M&/:!H.:!45)!.BB5H&6!)5!+5)&!P&'.(:&!5L!
!"#&"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 27 of 47 PageID #: 1842
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
G;&! '(-(B.)*+&! &LL&')! 5L! );&:&! &%A&/*&4'&:! ;.:! P&&4! .! @/&.)! /&6(')*54! 5L! )/(:)! *4! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! .46! ,5();! ?.M5).! A5B*)*':#! ! N5'(:! @/5(A! -&-P&/:! P&B*&+&6! );.)! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! ;.6! B5:)! );&! )/(:)! 5L! :5-&! +5)&/:! P&'.(:&! 5L! P.6! P&;.+*5/! *4! );&! A.:)#! ! C''5/6*4@! )5! );&! @/5(AY! );*:! /&:(B):! L/5-! -5/&! );.4! ^(:)! A55/! )/.*4*4@! 5L! A5BB! H5/M&/:! .46! &%)&46:! )5! :5-&)*-&:!4.:)0!P&;.+*5/!54!);&!A./)!5L!A5H&/L(B!@/5(A:!5/!*46*+*6(.B:!*4!);&!'5(4)0#!!!
E4&! 5L! );&! L5'(:! @/5(A! -&-P&/:! H;5! @/&H! (A! *4! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! ;.6! -5+&6! .H.0! L5/! 2V! 0&./:! )5! G&-A&Y! C/*J54.#! ! ,;&! ;.6! P&&4! P.'M! *4! );&! '5(4)0! L5/! O! 0&./:! )5! .''&A)! .! A/5-*4&4)!A5:*)*54!*4!);&!'5--(4*)0#!!,;&!P&B*&+&6!);.)!45);*4@!;.6!';.4@&6!5/!*-A/5+&6! *4!);&!0&./:!:;&!H.:!@54&#!!,;&!'54)*4(&6!)5!45)&!)H5!'54'&/4:!/&B.)&6!)5!);*:!+*&HW!!!
ǲ7-&') 0,481.&$) *#+-) 6&48&() 9.#:,'1() 5,+#';) #') <-1'',') =,>'+?) #2) &@+.&4&/?) $#2,.;1'#:&$%))6-&.&)#2)',+);,,$)#'3,.41+#,'),')*-&.&)+,);,)+,) 5,+&),.) -,*) +,) *,.A) +-.,>;-)+-&)$&+1#/Ǥǳ)
ǲ6-&) 0>/+>.&) ,3) +-#2) 2+1+&) #2) ',+) *&/0,4#';) +,) B1+#5&) 8&,8/&) ,.) 5,+&.2%) !+) -12) "&&') /#A&) +-#2)3,.)$&01$&2%)6-&.&)#2)2#48/?)',)0>2+,4&.)2&.5#0&)&+-#0),.)&33,.+)+,),5&.0,4&)41'?) ,3)+-&)"1..#&.2)+,)&33&0+#5&)81.+#0#81+#,'%)6-1+)-12)&@#2+&$)3,.)$&01$&2%ǳ)
N.BB! 9*+&/! >5(4)0! H.:! 45)! L/&&! 5L! -.40! 5L! );&:&! '54'&/4:#! ! C-54@! L5'(:! @/5(A! -&-P&/:! .46!:5-&!:(/+&0!/&:A546&4):Y!*)!H.:!P&B*&+&6!);.)!.!:)/54@!A/&^(6*'&!&%*:):!.@.*4:)!R.)*+&! '5--(4*)0! -&-P&/:#! ! E4&! :(/+&0! /&:A546&4)! -.6&! *)! 'B&./! *4! :).)*4@! );.)! :;&! H5(B6! 45)!  ǲ͸ͷǳǤ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
!"#'"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 28 of 47 PageID #: 1843
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !
01&&/%2,%3&'(&*"!,'*"$&/%+%"/)4&'*&%"/$5&2'!,*-&
! C#!9&:&./';!D(&:)*54!G&4! ! G;&!/&:&./';!45H!.66/&::&:!);&! X(&:)*54! 5L!H;&);&/!);&! L*46*4@:!*4!);&! ,;.4454!>5(4)0! A(PB*'!5A*4*54!:(/+&0!./&!@&4&/.B*J.PB&#!!C:!*4!.BB!:(/+&0!/&:&./';Y!);&!@5.B!*:!)5!P&!.PB&!)5! @&4&/.B*J&!L/5-!);&!:.-AB&!5L!/&:A546&4):!6/.H4!L/5-!);&!A5A(B.)*54#!!G5!@.*4!*4:*@;)!54! );&!@&4&/.B*J.P*B*)0!5L!);*:!:(/+&0Y!*)!*:!;&BAL(B!)5!'54:*6&/!;5H!5);&/!:)(6*&:!5L!&./B0!+5)*4@! ;.+&! '5-&! 5()! 54! );&! X(&:)*54! 5L! +5)&/! )(/45()! .46! /&A/&:&4).)*54! *4! '54)&-A5/./0! &B&')*54:#!!!
G5! P&! 'B&./Y! );&! /&B*.P*B*)0! 5L! );&! '(//&4)! :)(60! *:! 45)! *4! X(&:)*54#! ! G;&! /&:(B):! ;&/&! ./&! /&B*.PB&!H;&4!'54:*6&/*4@!);&!5A*4*54:Y!+.B(&:!.46!'54'&/4:!5L!,;.4454!>5(4)0!/&:*6&4):#!! G;&! X(&:)*54! *:Y! -5/&! P/5.6B0Y! .P5()! );&! @&4&/.B! *-A.')! &./B0! +5)*4@! ;.:! 54! &B&')*54:! );/5(@;5()!);&![4*)&6!,).)&:#!!!
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
G;&! :)5/0! *:! X(*)&! 'B&./! L/5-! );&! +5)*4@! P&;.+*5/! B*)&/.)(/&#! ! G;&! :(-! 5L! );*:! H5/M! ;.:! 6&-54:)/.)&6! );.)! );&! '.A.'*)0! 5L! +5)&/:! )5! '.:)! .4! &./B0! P.BB5)! *4'/&.:&:! )(/45()! P&'.(:&! 5L! );&! '54+&4*&4'&! .46! *4'/&.:&6! .''&::! )5! );&! P.BB5)#! ! <5/&5+&/Y! );&! *4'/&.:&6! B&@*)*-.'0! .46! .))&4)*54! &./B0! +5)*4@! 5LL&/:! ;.+&! (4*X(&! &LL&'):! 54! );&! A&/'&A)*54:! 5L! +5)&/:! H;5! ./&! -5/&! &4@.@&6! .46! :.)*:L*&6! .:! .! /&:(B)#! ! G5! :(--./*J&Y! &./B0! +5)*4@! ;.:! :(P:).4)*+&Y! A/5'&6(/.B!.46!A:0';5B5@*'.B!P&4&L*):!)5!+5)*4@!*4!);&![4*)&6!,).)&:#!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"S!,&&!@&4&/.BB0Y!I.(B!Q/54M&Y!$+.!Q.B.4&:ZȋʹͲͲ͹Ȍǲǡǳ C<D)C,/#+#01/)<0#&'0&)1'$)C,/#+#02)1V`1aW!=8SZ=17j!ǤǤȋʹͲͲͳȌǡǲ ǡǳ94&.#01')C,/#+#01/)<0#&'0&)E&5#&*Y!S7!Y!S=8ZST1j!R&&B&0Y!Q/.4)!\#!.46!_*BB*./6!$#!
ǡǤȋʹͲͲͳȌǡǲǫ!ǳǤ6-&)<,0#1/)<0#&'0&)F,>.'1/Y!8O#! 2V!Q/.4)!.46!9*';./6:54Y!2>8.1!45)&!"S#!!!
2"!,5();H&BBY!I/*:'*BB.#!`2VV1aǤǲ ǣ9&Zǯ! ǤǳC<D)C,/#+#02)1'$)C,/#+#01/)<0#&'0&!SO`"a#! 22!ǡǤǤǡǤǤȋʹͲͲ͸ȌǡǲǣȂC@&4)!I/5PB&-:!*4!$B&')*54! ǡǳ)C,/#0?)<+>$#&2)F,>.'1/Y!81W!1S"Ȃ7"V#!! 28!Q/54M&!`&)#!.BaY!2>8.1!45)&!"SY!.)!A.@&!=12#!
!"#("!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 29 of 47 PageID #: 1844
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! ! Q*+&4! );&! :(AA5/)! &./B0! +5)*4@! &4^50:! L/5-! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! :(/+&0! /&:A546&4):Y! 4.)*54.B! :';5B./B0!/&:&./';Y!&B&')*54!5LL*'*.B:!.46!);&*/!A/5L&::*54.B!.::5'*.)*54:Y!*)!*:!:(/A/*:*4@!);.)! H&! ./&! :)*BB! X(&:)*54*4@! H;&);&/! );*:! *:! .4! &::&4)*.B! A/.')*'&! L5/! );&! .6-*4*:)/.)*54! 5L! &B&')*54:!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0#!!E4&!/&:&./';&/!;.:!@54&!:5!L./!.:!)5!:.0!);.)!³HOHFWLRQGD\LQ the United States is rapidly turning into an anachronism: waiting in line to cast our ballots will EHFRPH WKH TXDLQW QRWLRQ RI D E\JRQH HUD´24 The evidence is clear. The question now is whether Shannon County is ready to face these conclusions and revise their election practices.

61&&7,+).++,'*&"*7&)'*)$.+,'*+&

!

Q*+&4! );&! 5P:&/+.)*54:! 5L! );*:! /&:&./';! .46! /&:&./';! '546(')&6! P0! A/5-*4&4)! :';5B./:! *4!

);&! L*&B6! 5L! C-&/*'.4! +5)*4@! P&;.+*5/Y! *)! *:! 6*LL*'(B)! )5! '54'B(6&! .40);*4@! 5);&/! );.4! );&!

L5BB5H*4@W!!G;&!.P:&4'&!5L!.!L(BB0!6&+&B5A&6!&./B0!+5)*4@!:0:)&-!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0!6*B()&:!

);&!*-A.')!5L!+5)*4@!A/&L&/&4'&:!5L!,;.4454!>5(4)0!+5)&/:#!!!

!

\;&4! H&! '54:*6&/! );&! /.'*.B! .46! A5B*)*'.B! '5;&:*54! 5L! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! +5)&/:Y! );&! /.'*.B!

A5B./*J.)*54! 5L! ,5();! ?.M5).! &B&')*54:! -5/&! @&4&/.BB0Y! H&! ./&! '5-A&BB&6! )5! &%A.46! );*:!

'54'B(:*54! )5! *4'B(6&! );&! '54'&/4! L5/! );&! 6*B()*54! 5L! +5)*4@! A/&L&/&4'&:! 5L! &4/5BB&6!

-&-P&/:!5L!);&!E@B.B.!,*5(%!G/*P&!H;5!/&:*6&!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0#!!!

!

$.';! 5L! );&! )&4! /&:&./';! X(&:)*54:! .66/&::&6! *4! );*:! :)(60! ;.:! :;&6! B*@;)! 54! );&!

6*:.6+.4).@&6! '546*)*54:! C-&/*'.4! 346*.4! L.'&! *4! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! &B&')*54:#! ! G;&!

:(--./0!'54'B(:*54:!L5/!&.';!5L!);5:&!)&4!X(&:)*54:!./&!A/&:&4)&6!*4!G.PB&!O#"!P&B5H#!!!

! +),-%'[32D''90SS)1J'!"#E-0&/"#&'W"1'<%&%)1EF'G0%&$/"#&'

!

<%&%)1EF'G0%&$/"#&'

90SS)1J'!"#E-0&/"#'

'

"#!!C/&!,;.4454!>5(4)0!C-&/*'.4!346*.4:!.!

k&:#!

:(LL*'*&4)B0!B./@&!.46!@&5@/.A;*'.BB0!'5-A.')!

!

@/5(A!'54:)*)()*4@!.!-.^5/*)0!*4!,;.4454!

>5(4)0b!

!

2#!!C/&!,;.4454!>5(4)0!C-&/*'.4!346*.4:!

k&:#!!!

A5B*)*'.BB0!'5;&:*+&b!

!

!

8#!!?5!\;*)&:!+5)&!:(LL*'*&4)B0!.:!.!PB5'!)5!&4.PB&! R5!.)!'5(4)0!B&+&B#!

*)!)5!(:(.BB0!6&L&.)!);&!A/&L&//&6!'.46*6.)&!5L! !

,;.4454!>5(4)0!C-&/*'.4!346*.4:b!

k&:!.)!:).)&!B&+&B#!!!

!

1#!!3:!+5)*4@!*4!&B&')*54:!5L!);&!:).)&!5/!A5B*)*'.B! k&:#!

:(P6*+*:*54!/.'*.BB0!A5B./*J&6b!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
21!
ǡǤʹͲͲͶǤǲǤǳ!
C44(.B!<&&)*4@!5L!);&!C-&/*'.4!I5B*)*'.B!,'*&4'&!C::5'*.)*54#!

!"#)"!"

!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 30 of 47 PageID #: 1845

F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)!

F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8!

!

!

7#!!3:!);&/&!.!;*:)5/0!5L!5LL*'*.B!6*:'/*-*4.)*54!*4! k&:#!

:).)&!5/!A5B*)*'.B!:(P6*+*:*54!);.)!)5(';&6!);&! !

/*@;)!5L!-&-P&/:!5L!);&!-*45/*)0!@/5(A!)5!

/&@*:)&/Y!)5!+5)&Y!5/!5);&/H*:&!)5!A./)*'*A.)&!*4!

);&!6&-5'/.)*'!A/5'&::#!

!

=#!!?5!C-&/*'.4!346*.4:!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0!P&./! k&:#!

);&!&LL&'):!5L!6*:'/*-*4.)*54!*4!:(';!./&.:!.:!

!

&6('.)*54Y!&-AB50-&4)!.46!;&.B);Y!H;*';!

;*46&/!);&*/!.P*B*)0!)5!A./)*'*A.)&!&LL&')*+&B0!*4!

);&!A5B*)*'.B!A/5'&::b!

T#!!C/&!,;.4454!>5(4)0!'*)*J&4:!&4@.@&6!*4!

k&:#!

:).)&Y!4.)*54.B!.46!)/*P.B!&B&')*54:b!

O#! ! ?5! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! '*)*J&4:! :(AA5/)! &./B0! k&:#!

+5)*4@! .:! .4! &::&4)*.B! A./)! 5L! );&! &B&')5/.B!

A/5'&::!*4!);&*/!'5(4)0b!

!

S#!?5!,;.4454!>5(4)0!C-&/*'.4!346*.4!+5)&/:! k&:#!

;.+&!.!L&./!5/!;&:*).4'0!)5!+5)&!.)!K5)!,A/*4@:!*4! !

N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)0b!

!

"V#!!3:!);&/&!.!:).)*:)*'.B!/&B.)*54:;*A!P&)H&&4! k&:#!!

&./B0!+5)*4@!A/5+*:*54:!.46!)(/45()!*4!-*45/*)0!

'5--(4*)*&:b!

!

!

Q*+&4! );.)! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! *:! 54B0! 54&! 5L! )H5! '5(4)*&:! *4! );&! :).)&! );.)! '54)/.')! 5()!

&B&')*54! :&/+*'&:! )5! .45);&/! '5(4)0Y! );&/&! *:! /&.:54! )5! *4'/&.:&! );&! :'/()*40! 5L! ;5H! *):!

&B&')*54:! ./&! .6-*4*:)&/&6#! ! G;&! 5);&/! '5(4)0! *:! G566! >5(4)0Y! H;*';! '54)/.'):! H*);! G/*AA!

>5(4)0! L5/! );&! .6-*4*:)/.)*54! 5L! );&*/! &B&')*54:#! ! C''5/6*4@! )5! .6-*4*:)/.)5/:! *4! );&! ,5();!    ǯ ǡ    ./&!  ǲ ǳ

);.4!&B&')*54:!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0#!34!:;5/)Y!);&/&!./&!L&H&/!A/5PB&-:!'5--(4*'.)&6!)5!);&! ǯ     6! >5(4)0#! ! I&/;.A:! *)! *:! P&'.(:&! \*44&/Y! ,5();!

?.M5).Y! *:! .! -5/&! A/5%*-.)&! '5(4)0! :&.)! )5! -5/&! /&:*6&4):! *4! G566! >5(4)0! );.4! K5)!

,A/*4@:Y! ,5();! ?.M5).! *:! )5! /&:*6&4):! *4! ,;.4454! >5(4)0#! ! I&/;.A:! .B:5! *)! *:! P&'.(:&! );&!

/.'*.B! .46! :5'*5&'545-*'! -.M&Z(A! 5L! G566! .46! G/*AA! '5(4)*&:! *:! -5/&! :*-*B./! );.4! );&!

/.'*.B!.46!:5'*5&'545-*'!-.M&Z(A!5L!,;.4454!.46!N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)*&:#!![4L5/)(4.)&B0Y!);&!

(46&/B0*4@!'.(:&!5L!*4'/&.:&6!)&4:*54:!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0!&B&')*54:!*:!5():*6&!);&!:'5A&!5L!

);*:!/&A5/)#!!!!

!

,)*BBY! H&! M45H! L/5-! );&! '(//&4)! /&:&./';! );.)! R.)*+&! +5)&/:! *4! ,;.4454! >5(4)0! 6&:*/&!

@/&.)&/! .''&::! )5! &./B0! +5)*4@! A/.')*'&:! );.4! );&0! '(//&4)B0! ;.+&#! ! \&! M45H! );.)! ,;.4454!

>5(4)0! /&:*6&4):! L&&B! );.)! &4;.4'&6! .''&::! )5! &./B0! +5)*4@! H5(B6! B*M&B0! *4'/&.:&! );&*/!

A./)*'*A.)*54! *4! :).)&! .46! L&6&/.B! &B&')*54:Y! .46! H&! M45H! );.)! );&:&! '*)*J&4:! ./&! 45)!

'5-L5/).PB&!'.:)*4@!);&*/!P.BB5):!*4!N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)0#!!<.40!./&!;&:*).4)!)5!+5)&!P&'.(:&!5L!

);&!)*-&!.46!L*4.4'*.B!'5:)!.::5'*.)&6!H*);!.!)/*A!)5!K5)!,A/*4@:Y!H;*B&!5);&/:!L&&B!);&0!./&!

!"#*"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 31 of 47 PageID #: 1846
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! ! :(P^&')! )5! 6*:'/*-*4.)*54! .46! @&4&/.BB0! A55/! )/&.)-&4)! P0! 5LL*'*.B:! *4! N.BB! 9*+&/! >5(4)0#!! G;&!'5-P*4&6!&LL&')!5L!B&::&/!/&:5(/'&:Y!6*:).4'&!L/5-!.B)&/4.)*+&!/&:5(/'&:Y!.46!.!;*:)5/*'! :&4:&!5L!-*:)/&.)-&4)!:*-AB0!65!45)!A/5+*6&!.''&A).PB&!'546*)*54:!L5/!C-&/*'.4!+5)&/:!)5! '.:)!);&*/!P.BB5)#!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 45(4<+ǯ9'A4!R;<;+7@?' ! 3!'54L*/-!);.)!);&!'54)&4):!5L!);*:!/&A5/)!./&!)/(&!)5!);&!P&:)!5L!-0!M45HB&6@&!.46!P&B*&L! .46!);.)!3!-.M&!);*:!/&A5/)!M45H*4@!);.)Y!*L!*)!*:!)&46&/&6!*4!&+*6&4'&Y!3!H5(B6!P&!B*.PB&!)5! A/5:&'()*54!*L!3!;.+&!H*BBL(BB0!:).)&6!.40);*4@!H;*';!3!M45H!)5!P&!L.B:&!5/!);.)!3!65!45)! P&B*&+&!)5!P&!)/(&#! ! ! !

,*@4.)(/&W!!

!

!

! !! !! ?.)&W!!!](B0!2Y!2V"2hhhhhh!

!"$,"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 32 of 47 PageID #: 1847

F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)!

F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8!

!

!

;((4?A75';D''9C;??@?'!@6?+='4;<R='8@+7?Q'(6OR7!'@(7?7@?'96<84='

'

"#!!?*6!05(!+5)&!*4!);&!B.:)!4.)*54.Bd:).)&ZH*6&!&B&')*54b!!!

l!!m!!0&:!

l!!m!!45! ȏȐǯ!

!

!

2#!!?*6!05(!+5)&!*4!);&!B.:)!)/*P.B!&B&')*54b!

l!!m!!0&:!

l!!m!!45! ȏȐǯ!

!

!

8#!!K5H!5L)&4!65!05(!+5)&!*4!4.)*54.Bd:).)&ZH*6&!&B&')*54:b!

!

l!!m!!.BH.0:!

l!!m!!-5:)!5L!);&!)*-&!

!

l!!m!!:5-&)*-&:!

!

l!!m!!/./&B0!

!

l!!m!!4&+&/!

!

1#!!K5H!5L)&4!65!05(!+5)&!*4!)/*P.B!&B&')*54:b!

!

l!!m!!.BH.0:!

l!!m!!-5:)!5L!);&!)*-&!

!

l!!m!!:5-&)*-&:!

!

l!!m!!/./&B0!

!

l!!m!!4&+&/!

!

!

7#!! ,5();!?.M5).!.BB5H:!);&!(:&!5L!&./B0!+5)*4@Y!H;*';!*:!.!:0:)&-!H;&/&P0!+5)&/:!'.4!

'.:)!&./B0!P.BB5):!.)!.!'5(4)0!&B&')*54:!5LL*'&!5/!:.)&BB*)&!B5'.)*54:!:(';!.:!'5--(4*)0!

'&4)&/:Y!';(/';&:Y!5/!&+&4!@/5'&/0!:)5/&:#!K.+&!05(!&+&/!(:&6!&./B0!+5)*4@!)5!'.:)!

05(/!+5)&!*4!L&6&/.Bd:).)&ZH*6&!&B&')*54:b!

l!!m!!0&:!

l!!m!!45! ȏȐǯ!

!

!

!

!"$+"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 33 of 47 PageID #: 1848

F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)!

F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8!

!

!

!

NE9!GK$!R$nG!N$\!D[$,G3ER,Y!I_$C,$![,$!C!7ZIE3RG!,>C_$!GE!_$G![,!cRE\!KE\!

<[>K!kE[!CQ9$$!\3GK!GK$!NE__E\3RQ!,GCG$<$RG,!`7i!,G9ERQ_k!CQ9$$Y!1!i!

CQ9$$Y!8!i!R$3GK$9!CQ9$$!RE9!?3,CQ9$$Y!2i!?3,CQ9$$Y!"i!,G9ERQ_k!?3,CQ9$$a!

!

!

!

7!

1!

8!

2!

"!

,)/54@B0! C@/&&! R&*);&/! ?*:.@/&&! ,)/54@B0!

.@/&&!

.@/&&!

!

?*:.@/&&!

45/!

6*:.@/&&!

=#!!$./B0!+5)*4@!*:!*-A5/).4)!)5!,5();!

!

!

!

!

!

?.M5).!+5)&/:!.46!:;5(B6!P&!-.6&!.:!

.+.*B.PB&!.:!A5::*PB&#!

T#!!3L!&./B0!+5)*4@!H.:!-.6&!.+.*B.PB&!*4! !

!

!

!

!

,;.4454!>5(4)0!3!H5(B6!P&!-5/&!B*M&B0!)5!

+5)&!*4!,5();!?.M5).!&B&')*54:#!

O#!!3!)/(:)!&B&')*54!5LL*'*.B:!*4!,;.4454!

!

!

!

!

!

>5(4)0#!

S#!!3!)/(:)!&B&')*54!5LL*'*.B:!*4!N.BB!9*+&/! !

!

!

!

!

>5(4)0#!

"V#!!3!)/(:)!&B&')*54!5LL*'*.B:!*4!N.BB!9*+&/! !

!

!

!

!

>5(4)0!.:!-(';!.:!3!)/(:)!&B&')*54!5LL*'*.B:!

*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0#!

""#!!3L!&./B0!+5)*4@!H.:!45)!.+.*B.PB&!*4! !

!

!

!

!

,;.4454!>5(4)0!3!H5(B6!)/.+&B!)5!N.BB!

9*+&/!>5(4)0!)5!'.:)!.4!&./B0!P.BB5)#!

!

"2#!!\5(B6!05(!:.0!);.)!05(!./&!;&:*).4)!)5!+5)&!*4!N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)0b!

!

l!!m!!k&:!

!

l!!m!!R5!

!

ȏȐǯ!

!

!

"8#!!3N!k$,!GE!o"VW!!\;0!./&!05(!/&B(').4)!)5!+5)&!*4!N.BB!9*+&/!>5(4)0b!

!

!

!

EI$R!$R?$?!9$,IER,$W!!!

!

!

!

"8#!C@&W! "1#!Q&46&/W! "7#!9.'&W!!!

"=#!G5H4!5L!9&:*6&4'&W!

!

!

!

!

<!!!!d!!!!!N!

\;*)&!!!!d!!!!R.)*+&!!!!!d!!! G5H4!i!!

E);&/!

!

!

!"$#"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 34 of 47 PageID #: 1849
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !
CII$R?3n!FW!!I[F_3>!EI3R3ER!,[9U$k!9$,IER,$!N9$D[$R>3$,!

Valid

Did you vote in the last national/state-wide election?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Yes

54

70.1

70.1

70.1

No

23

29.9

29.9

100.0

Total

77

100.0

100.0

Valid

Yes No Total

Did you vote in the last tribal election? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

60

77.9

17

22.1

77

100.0

77.9 22.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 77.9 100.0

Valid
Missing Total

How often do you vote in national/state-wide elections? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Always Most of the time Sometimes Rarely Never Total System

33

42.9

16

20.8

17

22.1

4

5.2

6

7.8

76

98.7

1

1.3

77

100.0

43.4 21.1 22.4
5.3 7.9 100.0

Cumulative Percent 43.4 64.5 86.8 92.1 100.0

!"$$"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 35 of 47 PageID #: 1850
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !

How often do you vote in tribal elections? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Valid

Always Most of the time Sometimes Rarely Never Total

50

64.9

10

13.0

9

11.7

4

5.2

4

5.2

77

100.0

64.9 13.0 11.7
5.2 5.2 100.0

Cumulative Percent 64.9 77.9 89.6 94.8 100.0

Have you ever used early voting to cast your vote in federal/state-wide elections?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Yes

15

19.5

19.5

19.5

Valid No

62

80.5

80.5

100.0

Total

77

100.0

100.0

Early voting is important to South Dakota voters and should be made as available as possible.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Strongly Disagree

1

1.3

1.3

1.3

Disagree

3

3.9

3.9

5.2

Neither Agree Nor Disagree

8

10.4

10.4

15.6

Valid

Agree

30

39.0

39.0

54.5

Strongly Agree

35

45.5

45.5

100.0

Total

77

100.0

100.0

!"$%"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 36 of 47 PageID #: 1851
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !

If early voting was made available in Shannon County I would be more likely to vote in South Dakota elections.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Strongly Disagree

1

1.3

1.3

1.3

Disagree

9

11.7

11.7

13.0

Neither Agree Nor Disagree

6

7.8

7.8

20.8

Valid

Agree

27

35.1

35.1

55.8

Strongly Agree

34

44.2

44.2

100.0

Total

77

100.0

100.0

Valid

I trust election officials in Shannon County. Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

10

13.0

10

13.0

10

13.0

29

37.7

18

23.4

77

100.0

13.0 13.0 13.0 37.7 23.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent 13.0 26.0 39.0 76.6 100.0

Valid

I trust election officials in Fall River County. Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

9

11.7

11

14.3

18

23.4

28

36.4

11

14.3

77

100.0

11.7 14.3 23.4 36.4 14.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 11.7 26.0 49.4 85.7 100.0

!"$&"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 37 of 47 PageID #: 1852
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !

I trust election officials in Fall River County as much as I trust election officials in Shannon County.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Strongly Disagree

6

7.8

7.8

7.8

Disagree

16

20.8

20.8

28.6

Neither Agree Nor Disagree

21

27.3

27.3

55.8

Valid

Agree

23

29.9

29.9

85.7

Strongly Agree

11

14.3

14.3

100.0

Total

77

100.0

100.0

If early voting was not available in Shannon County I would travel to Fall River County to cast an early ballot.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Strongly Disagree

24

31.2

31.2

31.2

Disagree

27

35.1

35.1

66.2

Neither Agree Nor Disagree

3

3.9

3.9

70.1

Valid

Agree

15

19.5

19.5

89.6

Strongly Agree

8

10.4

10.4

100.0

Total

77

100.0

100.0

Valid

Would you say that you are hesitant to vote in Fall River County?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Yes

57

74.0

74.0

74.0

No

18

23.4

23.4

97.4

Don't Know

2

2.6

2.6

100.0

Total

77

100.0

100.0

!"$'"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 38 of 47 PageID #: 1853

F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !
Why hesitant to vote in Fall River County?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent

18

23.4

23.4

distance

1

1.3

1.3

Distance

1

1.3

1.3

Distance, work schedule.

Can't work it. Too much time

1

1.3

1.3

away from home and work.

Distance, cost, not familiar with people.

1

1.3

1.3

Don't like to travel

1

1.3

1.3

Don't want to drive

1

1.3

1.3

Don't want to take the time

1

1.3

1.3

Dont trust Fall River County

1

1.3

1.3

Have not used early voting in

districts but want to. FRC is

1

1.3

1.3

too far.

Valid

hesitant against natives I dont want to

1

1.3

1.3

1

1.3

1.3

I wouldn't go, would wait until

1

1.3

1.3

election day.

Im not from there

1

1.3

1.3

Natives are not treated well

1

1.3

1.3

never been

1

1.3

1.3

no transportation

2

2.6

2.6

No transportation

5

6.5

6.5

no trust

1

1.3

1.3

No trust

1

1.3

1.3

not convenient. too far. don't

agree with principles. need

1

1.3

1.3

liberty and justice for all.

Not familiar with the area

1

1.3

1.3

not from there

2

2.6

2.6

Cumulative Percent 23.4 24.7 26.0
27.3
28.6 29.9 31.2 32.5 33.8
35.1
36.4 37.7 39.0 40.3 41.6 42.9 45.5 51.9 53.2 54.5
55.8
57.1 59.7

!"$("!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 39 of 47 PageID #: 1854

F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !

Not receptive or nice to Indians. They are rude. Distance, too far.

1

1.3

1.3

61.0

Not sure about a ride, too far.

1

1.3

1.3

62.3

Out of the way. Cops profile '65' license plates or if you look Indian.

1

1.3

1.3

63.6

prejudice against women. police pull me over

1

1.3

1.3

64.9

Racist town and county. Don't tell the truth. Not honest

1

1.3

1.3

66.2

should be able to vote at home

1

1.3

1.3

67.5

Takes too much time and costs too much.

1

1.3

1.3

68.8

There is conflict among

election officials and they

1

1.3

1.3

70.1

dont get along with everyone.

There is prejudice against native voters. I don't believe they count my vote.

1

1.3

1.3

71.4

they are full of shit

1

1.3

1.3

72.7

Too busy and it takes too much time.

1

1.3

1.3

74.0

too far

8

10.4

10.4

84.4

Too far

2

2.6

2.6

87.0

Too Far

1

1.3

1.3

88.3

Too far and too expensive

1

1.3

1.3

89.6

Too far, too expensive.

1

1.3

1.3

90.9

Too far. No transportation.

1

1.3

1.3

92.2

too far. not convenient

1

1.3

1.3

93.5

Too long of a ride. No car.

1

1.3

1.3

94.8

travel is too much

1

1.3

1.3

96.1

!"$)"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 40 of 47 PageID #: 1855

F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !

When you go to Hot springs, they are not always nice. They need to be forced to be nice.

1

1.3

Why should we have to travel too far? Need gas money to travel for voting.

1

1.3

Work schedule. Too far.

1

1.3

Total

77

100.0

1.3
1.3 1.3 100.0

97.4
98.7 100.0

Valid

18.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 35.00 37.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 41.00 42.00 43.00

!

Frequency

Age Percent

Valid Percent

1

1.3

1.3

5

6.5

6.5

1

1.3

1.3

1

1.3

1.3

2

2.6

2.6

2

2.6

2.6

1

1.3

1.3

2

2.6

2.6

1

1.3

1.3

1

1.3

1.3

1

1.3

1.3

1

1.3

1.3

3

3.9

3.9

1

1.3

1.3

3

3.9

3.9

1

1.3

1.3

3

3.9

3.9

3

3.9

3.9

1

1.3

1.3

2

2.6

2.6

2

2.6

2.6

!"$*"!"

Cumulative Percent 1.3 7.8 9.1 10.4 13.0 15.6 16.9 19.5 20.8 22.1 23.4 24.7 28.6 29.9 33.8 35.1 39.0 42.9 44.2 46.8 49.4

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 41 of 47 PageID #: 1856

F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !

44.00

2

2.6

2.6

45.00

4

5.2

5.2

46.00

1

1.3

1.3

47.00

1

1.3

1.3

48.00

3

3.9

3.9

49.00

2

2.6

2.6

51.00

1

1.3

1.3

53.00

3

3.9

3.9

54.00

2

2.6

2.6

55.00

1

1.3

1.3

56.00

1

1.3

1.3

58.00

1

1.3

1.3

59.00

1

1.3

1.3

60.00

3

3.9

3.9

61.00

3

3.9

3.9

62.00

1

1.3

1.3

63.00

2

2.6

2.6

64.00

1

1.3

1.3

66.00

1

1.3

1.3

67.00

2

2.6

2.6

69.00

1

1.3

1.3

70.00

1

1.3

1.3

79.00

1

1.3

1.3

Total

77

100.0

100.0

51.9 57.1 58.4 59.7 63.6 66.2 67.5 71.4 74.0 75.3 76.6 77.9 79.2 83.1 87.0 88.3 90.9 92.2 93.5 96.1 97.4 98.7 100.0

Valid

Male Female Total

Frequency

Gender Percent

Valid Percent

35

45.5

42

54.5

77

100.0

45.5 54.5 100.0

Cumulative Percent 45.5 100.0

!"%,"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 42 of 47 PageID #: 1857

F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !
Race
Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Valid

White Native Other Total

1

1.3

72

93.5

4

5.2

77

100.0

1.3 93.5
5.2 100.0

Cumulative Percent 1.3 94.8 100.0

Name of "Other" Race from previous question Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Valid

Asian native and black Native and hispanic native and white Total

73

94.8

1

1.3

1

1.3

1

1.3

1

1.3

77

100.0

94.8 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
100.0

Cumulative Percent 94.8 96.1 97.4 98.7 100.0

Valid

recoded race to include other categories in main values

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

White

2

2.6

2.6

2.6

Native

72

93.5

93.5

96.1

Black

3

3.9

3.9

100.0

Total

77

100.0

100.0

!"%+"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 43 of 47 PageID #: 1858

F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !
Town of residence
Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Valid

Pine Ridge Manderson Porcupine Kyle Oglala Slim Butte Wakpamni Thunder Valley Red Shirt Other Total

23

29.9

18

23.4

16

20.8

4

5.2

6

7.8

1

1.3

1

1.3

1

1.3

6

7.8

1

1.3

77

100.0

29.9 23.4 20.8
5.2 7.8 1.3 1.3 1.3 7.8 1.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 29.9 53.2 74.0 79.2 87.0 88.3 89.6 90.9 98.7 100.0

!

!

!"%#"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 44 of 47 PageID #: 1859
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !
ǣǯ!
!
G5W! 90.4!>H.';! N/5-W! 9*';./6!F/.(4:)&*4! 9&W! $%A&/)ǯǡǤǤǡǤ
ǡǤǤ! ?.)&W! ](B0!2Y!2V"2! ! <0!4.-&!*:!9*';!F/.(4:)&*4!.46!3!;.+&!P&&4!.:M&6!P0!);&!,)&+&4!?#!,.46+&4!_.H!ELL*'&!.:! .4!*46&A&46&4)!A/5L&::*54.B!)5!H/*)&!.!/&A5/)!*4!/&B.)*54!)5!);&!X(&:)*54:!.)!*::(&!*4!);&! '.:&!5L!F/55M:Y!&)!.B#!+#!Q.4)#!&)!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+#!"2Z7VV8Y!A&46*4@!P&L5/&!);&![4*)&6!,).)&:! ?*:)/*')!>5(/)Y!?*:)/*')!5L!,5();!?.M5).Y!\&:)&/4!?*+*:*54!L5/!);&!>5(4)0!5L!I&44*4@)54Y! ,).)&!5L!,5();!?.M5).#! ! G;&!@5.B:!L5/!-0!&%A&/)!/&A5/)!*4'B(6&!);&!L5BB5H*4@W! !
"# >54:*6&/!);&!/&B&+.4'&!5L!);&!Q*4@B&:!I/&'546*)*54:!.)!*::(&!*4!);&!*4:).4'&!'.:&#! 2# >54:*6&/!H;&);&/!5L!.!;*:)5/0!5L!6*:'/*-*4.)*54!*-A.')*4@!C-&/*'.4!346*.4!+5)*4@!
P&;.+*5/!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0!&B&')*54:!&%*:):#! 8# >54:*6&/!H;&);&/!&B&')*54:!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0!.46!);&!,).)&!5L!,5();!?.M5).!./&!
/.'*.BB0!A5B./*J&6! 1# >54:*6&/!H;&);&/!C-&/*'.4!346*.4:!*4!,;.4454!>5(4)0!./&!;&:*).4)!)5!+5)&!*4!N.BB!
9*+&/!>5(4)0!.46Y!*L!:5Y!H;0#! 7# >54:*6&/!.40!5);&/!L.'):Y!'*/'(-:).4'&:!5/!'54'B(:*54:!);.)!3!L*46!/&B&+.4)!)5!);&!
'.:&!5L!F/55M:!`&)#.B#a!+#!Q.4)!`&)#.B#a#! ! 3!;.+&!'5-AB&)&6!-0!/&:&./';!.46!H/*))&4!.!6&).*B&6!/&A5/)!5L!);&!-&);56:!(:&6!.46! '54'B(:*54:!@&4&/.)&6#!!!G;&!/&A5/)Y!.)).';&6!;&/&Y!A/5+*6&:!.!'5-AB&)&!:).)&-&4)!5L!.BB!-0! 5A*4*54:!*4!);*:!-.))&/!.46!);&!P.:*:!L5/!);&-#!!! ! <0!X(.B*L*'.)*54:!L5/!);*:!H5/M!*4'B(6&!);&!L5BB5H*4@W! !
"# 3!;5B6!.!I;?!*4!I5B*)*'.B!,'*&4'&!L/5-!);&![4*+&/:*)0!5L!>5B5/.65!.)!F5(B6&/#!!! 2# 3!;.+&!P&&4!&-AB50&6!.)!);&![4*+&/:*)0!5L!,5();!?.M5).ǯ
?&A./)-&4)!:*4'&!"SSSY!H;&/&!3!H.:!A/5-5)&6!*4!2VV1!)5!);&!/.4M!5L!C::5'*.)&! I/5L&::5/!.46!.@.*4!*4!2V"V!)5!);&!/.4M!5L!N(BB!I/5L&::5/#! 8# 3!.-!.!9&:&./';!C::5'*.)&!H*);!);&!Q5+&/4-&4)!9&:&./';!F(/&.(!`Q9Fa!.)!);&! [4*+&/:*)0!5L!,5();!?.M5).Y!'546(')*4@!/&:&./';!54!:).)&Y!)/*P.B!.46!454A/5L*)! 5/@.4*J.)*54:!:*4'&!2VV"#!!C:!.!Q9F!/&:&./';&/Y!3!;.+&!A/56('&6!/&A5/):!L5/!);&! ,5();!?.M5).!Q5+&/45/ǯǡǡ,*::&)54! \.;A&)54!E0.)&Y!,5();!?.M5).!>5--(4*)0!N5(46.)*54Y!\.MA.-4*!?*:)/*')! >5--(4*)0!?&+&B5A-&4)!>5/A5/.)*54Y!.46!,5();!?.M5).!?&A./)-&4)!5L!
!"%$"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 45 of 47 PageID #: 1860
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !
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
<0!A(PB*'.)*54:!5+&/!);&!A.:)!)&4!0&./:!*4'B(6&!);&!L5BB5H*4@W!
"# ǲ$+.B(.)*54!5L!?/*+&/!$6('.)*54!.46!_*'&4:*4@!*4!,5();!?.M5).#ǳ!!I/&A./&6!L5/!);&! ,5();!?.M5).!?&A./)-&4)!5L!G/.4:A5/).)*54#!!\*);!,;.4&!R5/60M&#!!,&A)&-P&/! 2V""#!
2# ǲZǤǳZ \.;A&)54!E0.)&#!\*);!\.04&!F55J&!.46!R*4.!F(BB;&.6#!CA/*B!2VVS#!
8# ³American Indian Criminal Justice System Improvements in North and South Dakota: 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQVLQ5HVSRQVHWR6$RI6´3UHSDUHGIRU866HQDWRU-RKQ Thune. With Patrice H. Kunesh, Frank Pommersheim, and William D. Anderson. April,
2008.!
1# ǲǤǳ 94&.#01')!'$#1')=>/+>.&)1'$)E&2&1.0-)F,>.'1/Y!+5B(-&!82Y!45#!1!`2VVOa#!\*);! \*BB*.-!?#!C46&/:54!
7# ǲǤǳ94&.#01')!'$#1')=>/+>.&) 1'$)E&2&1.0-)F,>.'1/Y!+5B(-&!82Y!45#!1!`2VVOa#!!\*);!\*BB*.-!?#!C46&/:54!
=# ǲ;&![4*+&/:*)0!5L!,5();! ǤǳǡͳͲǡʹȀ͵Ǥ ǡ $B*J.P&);!G;&*::Z,-*);!`2VVOa#!!
T# ǲǤǳ Ǥ

ǡ Ǥǲǡǡǳ I(PB*'.)*54:Y!G;5(:.46!E.M:Y!>C!`2VVTa#!!
O# ǲǣǤǤǤǳ F#!<.@B&P0Y!]#!D(*4!<54:54Y!.46!c&BB0!I.))&/:54Y!&6:#!G/&0+#';)=,';.&22D)B&*)E>/&2) 3,.)1')H/$)
ǤǳR&H!k5/MW!I&./:54ZI/&4)*'&!K.BB#!\*);!$B*J.P&);!G#!,-*);Y!2VVT#!!
S# ǲǤǳȗ ,5();!?.M5).!_.H!9&+*&HY!U5B(-&!7VY!<.0!2VV7#!\*);!C-0!,';H&*4B&#!! p,0-A5:*(-!54!,&4)&4'*4@!f!I(4*:;-&4)!B&.6!./)*'B&Y!H*);!*46*+*6(.B!/&+*&H! ./)*'B&:!P0Y!?(.4&!>;.-A.@4&!.46!>./5B&!Q5B6P&/@Y!.46!?.4&BB&!]#!?.(@;&/)0#!!
"V# ǲǣǯʹͲͲͶǤǤǤǳ ?.4'*4@!\*);5()!I./)4&/:W!K5H!>.46*6.)&:Y!I./)*&:!.46!34)&/&:)!Q/5(A:!34)&/.')!*4! );&!R&H!>.-A.*@4!N*4.4'&!$4+*/54-&4)Y!?.+*6!F#!<.@B&P0Y!]#!D(*4!<54:54!.46! c&BB0!?#!I.))&/:54Y!&6:#!I&H!>;./*).PB&!G/(:):Y!2VV7#!\*);!$B*J.P&);!G;&*::!,-*);!!
!"%%"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 46 of 47 PageID #: 1861
F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! !
""# ǲǣ!ǯʹͲͲͶZǤǳ 34!I1'0#';)7#+-,>+)C1.+'&.2D)J,*)=1'$#$1+&2()C1.+#&2)1'$)!'+&.&2+)K.,>82)!'+&.10+)#') +-&)B&*)=1481#;')L#'1'0&)G'5#.,'4&'+Y!?.+*6!F#!<.@B&P0Y!]#!D(*4!<54:54!.46!c&BB0! ?#!I.))&/:54Y!&6:#!I&H!>;./*).PB&!G/(:):Y!2VV7#!\*);!$B*J.P&);!G;&*::!,-*);!!
"2# ǲǤǳC,//#';) 94&.#01D)9')G'0?0/,8&$#1),3)C>"/#0)H8#'#,'#!F&4!9.6'B*LL!.46!,.-(&B!F&:)Y!&6:#! Q/&&4H556!I/&::#!2VV7#!!
"8# !'#+#1+#5&)1'$)E&3&.&'$>4)M,+#';D)K,5&.'#';)6-.,>;-)I#.&0+)I&4,0.10?)#')+-&)N'#+&$) <+1+&2#!_NF!,';5B./B0!I(PB*:;*4@#!C-&/*'.4!_&@.B!34:)*)()*54:!,&/*&:!&6*)&6!P0!$/*'! 9*:&Y![4*+&/:*)0!5L!?&B.H./&#!R&H!k5/MY!2VV1#!
"1# ǲ

Ǥǳ6-&)K>#$&)+,)C,/#+#01/)<0#&'0&)O#+&.1+>.&)1'$)E&2&1.0-),') !'+&.&2+)K.,>82Y!>B*+&!,#!G;5-.:Y!&6#!Q/&&4H556!I/&::#!2VV1#!!
"7# ǲ
Ǥǳ6-&)K>#$&)+,)C,/#+#01/)<0#&'0&) O#+&.1+>.&)1'$)E&2&1.0-),')!'+&.&2+)K.,>82Y!>B*+&!,#!G;5-.:Y!&6#!Q/&&4H556!I/&::#! 2VV1#!!
"=# ǲǣ ǤǳF,>.'1/),3)C,/#+#02Y!U5B(-&!=7Y!R(-P&/!8#!C(@(:)!2VV8#!!
"T# ǲǤǳ<,>+-)I1A,+1) O1*)E&5#&*Y!U5B(-&!1OY!R(-P&/!2Y!2VV8%)\*);!,)&+&!N&*-&/#!!
"O# ǲǣ ǫǳ C.,;.&22#5&)E&3,.42)P)+-&)QR2+)=&'+>.?D)6-&)SB&*)C.,;.&22#5#24#q!?.+*6!<'>(.4!.46! ,)&+&!,).-P5(@;Y!&6:#!>./5B*4.!C'.6&-*'!I/&::Y!2VV8#!
! 3!;.+&!:&/+&6!.:!.4!&%A&/)!H*)4&::!*4!54B0!54'&!'.:&!*4!);&!A.:)!L*+&!0&./:#!!3!H.:!;*/&6!.:!.4! &%A&/)!H*)4&::!P0!);&!,5();!?.M5).!C))5/4&0!Q&4&/.BǯLL*'&!*4!);&!'.:&!5L!ǲ EN!,GCG$Y!>;/*:!R&B:54Y!IB.*4)*LLY!+:#!I9E<3,3RQ!N[G[9$Y!3R>#!.46!9EQ$9!\#!K[RGY! ?&L&46.4):#!!3!H.:!A.*6!r2TYO"O#O7!L5/!);&!&%A&/)!/&A5/)#!!R5!6&A5:*)*54!5/!)&:)*-540!H.:! /&X(*/&6!L5/!);*:!'.:&#!!! ! <0!'5-A&4:.)*54!L5/!);&!'.:&!5L!F/55M:Y!&)!.B#!+#!Q.4)#!&)!.B#Y!*4'B(6*4@!&%A&4:&:Y!*:! r22Y7=8#S=#!!G;*:!*4'B(6&:!OT#=!/&:&./';!;5(/:!.)!.4!;5(/B0!/.)&!5L!r27V!A&/!;5(/!.46! r==8#S=!*4!&%A&4:&:#!!3!.@/&&6!)5!';./@&!.4!;5(/B0!/.)&!5L!r"7V!A&/!;5(/!L5/!)&:)*-540!.)! 6&A5:*)*54!.46!)/*.BY!*L!:(';!)&:)*-540!*:!4&'&::./0!*4!);*:!'.:&#!!! ! 3L!05(!/&X(&:)!.40!L(/);&/!*4L5/-.)*54!);.4!H.:!A/5+*6&6!*4!);*:!6*:'B5:(/&Y!AB&.:&!65!45)! ;&:*).)&!)5!'54).')!-&#!!3!'.4!P&!/&.';&6!P&:)!P0!)&B&A;54&!.)!=V7Z=TVZV""T#! !
!!!,*4'&/&B0Y!! !
! !!!9*';!F/.(4:)&*4Y!I;?!
!"%&"!"
!

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 92-12 Filed 09/21/12 Page 47 of 47 PageID #: 1862 F/.(4:)&*4!$%A&/)!9&A5/)! F/55M:Y!&)#!.B#Y!+#!Q.4)Y!&)#!.B#Y!>.:&!45#!>*+!"2Z7VV8! ! ! !
!"%'"!"
!

 
 Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 1 of 38 PageID #: 2104

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION

CHRIS BROOKS, FRANCIS RENCOUNTRE, )

GLORIA RED EAGLE, SHARON CONDEN, )

JACQUELINE GARNIER, JENNIFER RED

)

OWL, EDWINA WESTON, MICHELLE

)

WESTON, MONETTE TWO EAGLE, MARK )

A. MESTETH, STACY TWO LANCE, HARRY )

BROWN, ELEANOR WESTON, D A W N )

BLACK BULL, CLARICE MESTETH,

)

DONOVAN L. STEELE, EILEEN JANIS,

)

LEONA LITTLE HAWK, EVAN

)

RENCOUNTRE, CECIL LITTLE HAWK, SR., )

LINDA RED CLOUD, LORETTA LITTLE

)

HAWK, FAITH TWO EAGLE, EDMOND

)

MESTETH, AND ELMER KILLS BACK, JR., )

)

Plaintiff( s),

)

)

v.

)

)

JASON GANT, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY )

AS SOUTH DAKOTA SECRETARY OF

)

STATE, SHANNON COUNTY, SOUTH

)

DAKOTA, FALL RIVER COUNTY, SOUTH )

DAKOTA, SHANNON COUNTY BOARD OF )

COMMISSIONERS, JOE FALKENBUERG,

)

ANNE CASSENS, MICHAEL P. ORTNER,

)

DEB RUSSELL, AND JOE ALLEN IN THEIR )

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF

)

THE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONS )

FOR FALL RIVER COUNTY, SOUTH

)

DAKOTA, BRYAN J. KERN, DELORIS

)

HAGMAN, EUGENIO B. WHITE HAWK,

)

WENDELL YELLOW BULL, AND LYLA

)

HUTCHINSON IN THEIR OFFICIAL

)

CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY )

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR

)

SHANNON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, SUE )

GANJE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS )

THE COUNTY AUDITOR FOR SHANNON )

AND FALL RIVER COUNTIES, AND JAMES )

SWORD, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS )

ATTORNEY FOR SHANNON AND FALL

)

RIVER COUNTIES,

)

)

Defendant( s).

)

Case No.: 12-5003
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ALL DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 2 of 38 PageID #: 2105 I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs use the term "early voting" to mean in-person absentee voting, although the political science literature and experts refer to the same as "convenience voting." (SMF ~~ 4546.). Neither term is used in South Dakota law. Rather, "absentee voting" is allowed, both inperson and by mail. S.D.C.L. § 12-19. Chapter 12-19 allows a registered voter to cast an absentee ballot (S.D.C.L. § 12-19-1), request an absentee ballot by mail (§ 12-19-2), and apply for an absentee ballot in-person from the person in charge of the election during regular office hours up to 3:00 p.m. on the day of the election (§ 12-19-2.1). As 0/2012, absentee voting begins no later than 46 days prior to the election. S.D.C.L. § 12-16-1. The requirement that "[a]bsentee voting shall begin no earlier and no later than forty-six days prior to the election" was not added until 2011 by Session Law 2011, ch 79, § 1, which became effective for the 2012 election cycle.
While now, as of2012, state statute requires absentee voting for period to begin 46 days prior to an election, S.D.C.L. § 12-16-1 does not mandate that it be done "in-person" nor does it require such voting to occur within county borders. No law requires in-person absentee voting at a satellite office or in more than one location in a county. All decisions regarding where inperson absentee voting may occur are left to the discretion of each respective county commIssIOn.
Importantly, state law does not require a satellite office within Shannon County. S.D.C.L. § 12-19-53. Plaintiffs have not alleged that any South Dakota statute has been violated, nor can they. Shannon County residents have always been able to begin absentee voting 46 days prior to the election since that statute was enacted in all methods allowed and required under South Dakota statute. Shannon County residents have always been able to cast in-person absentee ballots at their designated polling place - the Fall River County Courthouse. Furthermore, and in
-2-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 3 of 38 PageID #: 2106 excess of what is required, Defendants have often previously provided an additional in-person absentee voting at a location in Shannon County. Significantly, Shannon County offered a satellite office in Shannon County for the full statutory time period, due to additional HAVA funding received from the Secretary of State, for both the 2012 primary and general elections. Shannon County has also passed a resolution providing for the full statutory period of in-person absentee voting within Shannon County through January 1, 2019. See Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on Mootness Grounds, Doc. 77. Defendants by this reference incorporate herein the entirety of Doc. 78, and the Court should find this case moot.
Any county, if faced with significant funding shortages, could curtail its in-person absentee voting locations or hours as long as it offers the minimum required in S.D.C.L. § 12-192.1. Such decisions are within the discretion of the county commission, based upon funding issues or other concerns. Local governments are routinely asked to prioritize services it may provide for its citizens based on funding constraints.
Shannon County faces the direst of funding issues of any county in the state and perhaps in the country. Of the ten poorest counties in South Dakota, Shannon County ranks dead last as far as taxable income provided via property taxes. (SMF ~ 3.) Local governmental officials have the unwelcome but necessary duties of prioritizing which county services can be funded and which services will be decreased or eliminated.
In order to provide a regular election budget for 2012, the Shannon County Commission had to make severe sacrifices. The Shannon County Commission had to completely eliminate any county funding whatsoever for county services in the following departments: Judicial System, Court-Appointed Attorney, County Jail, Juvenile Care, Support of Poor, Weed Control, and Conservation ofNatural Resources. Each Shannon County Commissioner has also agreed to receive no payment for serving as a commissioner. (SMF ~ 6.)
-3-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 4 of 38 PageID #: 2107 Defendants have given Plaintiffs what they sued to obtain, for both 2012 elections and
future elections. Therefore, it is difficult to determine what exactly Plaintiffs currently seek through this litigation. Plaintiffs made no assertion or arguments in their mootness briefing, filed Doc. 81, and thus have waived any argument that they are still entitled to declaratory judgment. Apparently, Plaintiffs press on to have a permanent injunction granted for exactly what they have already obtained, based upon Shannon County's past conduct. Accordingly, it is important for the Court to rule on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on Mootness Grounds before taking up this motion.
It is important for the Court to note the timeline of when Help America Vote Act (RAVA) funds became available to pay for a satellite office in Shannon County. Prior to May 25, 2008, no absentee voting expenses were covered by HAVA money, and Shannon County had to bear all such expenses. (SMF ~~ 5 & 14.) After May 25,2008, only some expenses incurred by Shannon County were reimbursable under the HAVA plan crafted by the Secretary of State. (SMF ~ 16.) Regular staff's normal eight-hour work day and associated payroll expenses were deemed not reimbursable under HAVA until March of2012. (SMF ~~ 16 & 18.)
Shannon County's population is 95% Native American. (SMF ~ 48.) It is undisputed that Shannon County voters consistently elect representatives of their choice. (SMF ~ 49.), One set of such representatives is the Shannon County Commission. See S.D.C.L. § 7-7-1.1 An elected body the County Commission acts on behalf of Shannon County residents. In so acting, the Commission is charged with the responsibility to maintain the fiscal stability of the County and the designation of polling places. S.D.C.L. §§ 7-8-20; 12-14-1. In balancing these interests, the Shannon County Commission previously designated the Fall River County Courthouse, along with other sites, as the location for in-person absentee voting. By the nature of a representative
-4-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 5 of 38 PageID #: 2108 form of government, this decision was made by the Native American residents of Shannon County.
No other county is required to have two in-person polling places for absentee voting. By forcing Shannon County to provide services above and beyond what is required by South Dakota law, a finding in Plaintiffs' favor would impose an unequal burden on the Native American residents of Shannon County. It seems incongruous that the Voting Rights Act ("VRA"), a law enacted to protect minority voters, would be used by 25 individuals to thwart the will of an entire county of minority voters by reversing the fiscally responsible and entirely legal choices made by their elected representatives thereby subjecting them to a loss of services or higher taxes.
II. STANDARD Plaintiffs seek no monetary damages. Plaintiffs only seek a permanent injunction and have since waived any request to a declaratory judgment. In fact, this Court found in its September 27,2012 Order that "Plaintiffs' request, therefore, is not to fix a past wrong, but is a request that all defendants, including Gant, provide in-county, in-person, early voting for every election cycle in the future and for the full statutorily set time period". (Doc. 95.) "Although a case may not be moot, a plaintiff still has the burden of showing that equitable relief is necessary, and the mere possibility of future injury is insufficient to enjoin official conduct." Olagues v. Russoniello, 770 F.2d 791, 799 (9th Cir.1985)(citing U.S. v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953)). "[t]he Supreme Court's admonition that any injunction regarding government functions is generally only permitted in 'extraordinary circumstances,' as officials should be given the 'widest latitude' possible while performing their official duties." Olagues, 770 F.2d at 799 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
-5-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 6 of 38 PageID #: 2109 When determining whether to grant or deny a request for a permanent injunction,
Plaintiffs must satisfy the four factors required in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S.Ct. 2743, 2756 (2010). Those factors are as follows:
1. Plaintiffs have suffered an irreparable injury; 2. that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; 3. that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiffs and defendants, a remedy in equity is warranted; and 4. that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. "An injunction should issue only if the traditional four-factor test is satisfied." Monsanto, 130 S.Ct. at 2757. As Wright and Miller have noted: Since an injunction is regarded as an extraordinary remedy, it is not granted routinely; [footnote omitted] indeed, the court usually will refuse to exercise its equity jurisdiction unless the right to relief is clear... [H]istorically, and even today, the main prerequisite to obtaining injunctive relief is a finding that plaintiff is being threatened by sotpe injury for which he has no adequate legal remedy. Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil2d § 2942 (1995). "Litigants with garden-variety election challenges such as ballot counting or election administration have been redirected from federal court to the state tribunals. In so doing, the court has recognized that the Constitution leaves to the states broad power to regulate the conduct of federal and state elections." Montgomery v. Leflore County Republican Executive Committee, 776 F.Supp. 1142, 1146 (N.D.Miss. 1991)(citing Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691, 702 (5th Cir.1981)); Hubbard v. Ammerman, 465 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir.l972)(federal courts should "not intervene in state election contests for the purpose of deciding issues of state law"), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 910 (1973); Powell v. Power, 436 F.2d 84,86 (2d Cir.l970)("federal
-6-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 7 of 38 PageID #: 2110 courts are neither equipped, nor empowered, to rectify every alleged election irregularity"). In Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691, the Fifth Circuit held that administration of elections is generally a matter of state concern, and that more than an ordinary dispute over the counting and marking of ballots is required for federal intervention to be appropriate. See Griffin v. Bums, 570 F.2d 1065, 1078 (1st Cir. 1978), Powell v. Power, 436 F.2d 84 (2d Cir. 1970). While many of these decision deal with § 5 of the VRA, the analysis and conclusion of the courts is instructive to this case. With this legal background, it is all the more important to hold Plaintiffs to the standards of Monsanto.
III. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES 1. Plaintiffs' Have Failed to Establish Standing Required for Article III Jurisdiction
Plaintiffs have failed to prove Article III standing. Without such a showing, the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider this matter. The Complaint was brought on behalf of 25 named plaintiffs. (Doc. 1). Despite naming numerous Plaintiffs, only five Plaintiffs submitted affidavits and only two of those affidavits were filed in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment. l Each Plaintiff must individually demonstrate standing. U.S. v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 743-44 (1995). A review of the record, including the affidavits submitted by Plaintiffs, illustrates that Plaintiffs have failed to prove standing, at the summary judgment stage, necessary to enable the Court to maintainjurisdiction2• Constitution Party v. Nelson, 639 F.3d 417,420-22 (8th Cir. 2011).
Standing "is perhaps the most important of the jurisdictional doctrines." Hays, 515 U. S. at 742. The United States Supreme Court has clearly indicated "the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing" which contains three elements. Id. First, the Plaintiff must have suffered
1 Monette Two Eagle, Clarice Mesteth, Edmond Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance and Dawn Black Bull submitted affidavits. (Docs. 49-13,49-14,49-15,49-16,47-17 respectively). Of those, Dawn Black Bull and Clarice Mesteth also submitted affidavits in support of summary judgment. (Docs. 93-9 and 93-10 respectively). 2 Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts likewise fails to present facts showing injury-in-fact to the individually named Plaintiffs. See generally Doc. 91-2.
-7-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 8 of 38 PageID #: 2111 an "injury in fact" which is defined as an invasion of a legally-protected interest that is a) concrete and particularized; and b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Id. at 743. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of. Id. Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Id. The U.S. Supreme Court has characterized these principles by repeatedly refusing "to recognize a generalized grievance against allegedly illegal government conduct as sufficient for standing to invoke the federal judicial power." Id. The burden is upon the party seeking the exercise ofjurisdiction in his favor, to clearly allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute. Id.
"The rule against generalized grievances applies with as much force in the equal protection context as in any other." Id. In Allen v. Wright, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that even if a governmental actor is discriminating on the basis of race, the resulting injury "accords a basis for standing only to those persons who are personally denied equal treatment by the challenged discriminatory conduct." 468 U.S. 737, 755 (1984)(accordHays, 515 U.S. at 743-44). "Only those citizens able to allege injury as a direct result of having personally been denied equal treatment may bring such a challenge, and citizens who do so carry the burden of proving their standing, as well as their case on the merits." Hays 515 U.S. at 746 (citing Allen, 468 U.S. at 755).
The Supreme Court has used juror selection as an example, citing Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991). Powers held that "[a]n individual juror does not have a right to sit on any particular petit jury, but he or she does possess the right not to be excluded from one on account of race." But of course, where an individual juror is excluded from the jury because of race, that juror has personally suffered the race-based harm recognized in Powers, and it is the fact of personal injury that is required. Hays, 515 U.S. at 746-47.
-8-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 9 of 38 PageID #: 2112
"Federal courts, bound by Article III, are 'not empowered to seek out and strike down
any governmental act that they deem to be repugnant to the Constitution.'" Dillard v. Chilton
Co. Commission, 495 FJd 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2007)(citing Rein v. Freedom From Religion
Found, Inc., 551 U.S. 587,598 (2007». "[A] plaintiff raising only a generally available
grievance about government - claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper
application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly
benefits him than it does the public at large - does not state an Article III case or controversy." Id. at 642-43 (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992». As in Lance v.
Coffman, "[t]he only injury ... allege[d] is that the law ... has not been followed. This injury is
precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about. the conduct of government
that we have refused to countenance in the past." 549 U.S. 437,442 (2007)(per curium).
For Plaintiffs to demonstrate standing under their VRA claims, they must demonstrate
that they:
(1) ha[ve] personally suffered or will suffer some distinct injury-in-fact as a result of defendant's conduct;
(2) the injury can be traced with some degree of causal certainty to defendant's conduct;
(3) the injury is likely to be redressed by the requested relief; (4) the plaintiff[s] must assert his own legal rights and interest, not those of a
third party; (5) the injury must consist of more than a generalized grievance that is shared
by many; and (6) the plaintiffs complaint must fall within the zone of interests to be
regulated or protected by the rule of law in question.
Newman v. Voinovich, 789 F.Supp. 1410, 1415 (S.D. Ohio 1992)(citing Valley Forge Christian
College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464,471-77
(1982». "Moreover, when ... the plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief he must establish that he
personally faces a realistic, immediate, and non-speculative threat of being prospectively
subjected to or harmed by the particular conduct at issue." Newman, 789 F.Supp. at 1415.
-9-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 10 of 38 PageID #: 2113
The proof necessary to show Article III standing increases with each successive stage of litigation. Constitution Party, 639 F.3d at 420-22. In describing the obligation to prove Article III standing at the summary judgment stage, the Court in Lujan stated:
Since these are not mere pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiffs case, each element must be supported in the same way as any other
matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof i. e., with the manner and
degree of evidence required at the successive states of the litigation. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. To prove standing, at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff cannot rest on mere allegations but must set forth specific facts which for the purposes of summary judgment are taken as true. Id. In cases such as this, where the non-moving party bears the burden of proof, the non-moving party may not rely on "mere pleadings" but must "by affidavits or other as otherwise provided in [Fed.R.Civ.P. 56] - set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial." Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. "If the opposing party does not so respond, summary judgment should, if appropriate, be entered against that party." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
As provided above, Plaintiffs may not assert the legal rights of a third party. Here, twenty of the twenty-five Plaintiffs provide no evidence whatsoever that they personally suffered or will suffer some distinct injury-in-fact, that the injury can be traced with some degree of causal certainty to defendant's conduct or that the injury is likely to be redressed by the requested relief. Rather, read in light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the record provides a "generalized grievance" that is shared by many. As to twenty Plaintiffs, this alone establishes their failure to maintain Article III standing. Allen, 468 U.S. at 755.
Although having submitted affidavits, the remaining five Plaintiffs likewise fail to establish Article III standing. The affidavit of Monette Two Eagle makes no mention of absentee voting or voting at Hot Springs at all. (Doc. 49-13). In their opening affidavits, Clarice Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, and Dawn Black Bull state generally that they cannot travel to Hot Springs
-10-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 11 of 38 PageID #: 2114 during a normal work day and that such travel would be an additional expense, but they fail to indicate that they were unable to vote on the days of in-person absentee voting provided by Shannon County in Shannon County, by mail or on Election Day. (Docs. 49-14, 49-16 and 4917). Edmond Mesteth also raises only a general grievance in stating, "I spend my income on providing for my family and should not have to incur travel costs to and from Hot Springs and the wear and tear on my vehicle." (Doc. 49-15). These assertions do not prove, or even allege, that any Plaintiff was dissuaded from or unable to cast a ballot for a candidate of his or her choice in any particular election. In support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Clarice Mesteth and Dawn Black Bull submit additional affidavits. (Docs. 93-9, 93-10). Clarice Mesteth and Dawn Black Bull both generally state a general distrust of Fall River County officials, a belief that their votes will not be counted if mailed in, and thus a preference for voting in-person. Id. No affiant has introduced evidence to show that any votes cast in a manner other than in-person absentee voting were uncounted. Mere suspicions regarding deficiencies in alternative methods of voting do not constitute evidence for the proposition that votes for candidates of their choice have not, in the past, or will not, in the future, be counted. Bishop v. Bartlett, 575 F.3d 419,425 (4th Cir. 2009)(allegations based on speculation will not withstand a standing challenge). Additionally, both Clarice Mesteth and Dawn Black Bull express their opinion that it would be "easier" to vote if in-person "early voting" were offered in Shannon County for 46 days. (Doc. 93-9 at ~ 10; Doc. 93-10 at ~ 14). While one could think of myriad ways in order to make voting "easier", Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence that they were unable in the past, or will be unable in the future, to participate in the electoral process and cast ballots for the candidates of their choice. In fact, neither Clarice Mesteth nor Dawn Black Bull ever utilized in-person absentee voting at a location in Shannon County when offered. (SMF ~ 50). Instead,
-11-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 12 of 38 PageID #: 2115 they consistently choose to cast their votes on Election Day itself in Shannon County. Id. Ultimately, no Plaintiff has demonstrated injury-in-fact or a causal connection between that injury and a policy or practice implemented by Defendants.
Plaintiffs' failure to show injury-in-fact is punctuated by their allegation that Defendants violated S.D.C.L. § 12-16-1 by failing to provide 46 days ofin-person absentee balloting in Shannon County. S.D.C.L. § 12-16-1 provides in part, "[a]bsentee voting shall begin no earlier and no later than forty-six days prior to the election." (Doc. 1 ~ 50). Plaintiffs point to past elections to illustrate Defendants were in violation ofS.D.C.L. § 12-16-1 by not providing additional polling places for in-person absentee voting within Shannon County. (Doc. 91 at ~ 18). S.D.C.L. § 12-16-1 does not, however, require in-person absentee voting nor does it require such voting to occur within any county's borders. Moreover, S.D.C.L. § 12-16-1 did not include the quoted language requiring 46 days of absentee voting until 2011 when added by Session Law 2011, ch 79, § 1. As such, the quoted language cannot be used to establish any violation in past election cycles. This year of2012 is the first election cycle where this language is applicable. Defendants provided in-county, in-person absentee voting for the full statutory period in 2012. Plaintiffs' have been provided all and more than what is required by S.D.C.L. § 12-16-1. Any assertion that Defendants will violate S.D.C.L. § 12-6-1 in future elections is at best conjectural and hypothetical.
Plaintiffs cannot show injury-in-fact that is traced to Defendants' conduct. A review of the affidavits submitted by the five Plaintiffs shows no more than a generalized grievance with no indication that they suffered an "injury-in-fact" that is concrete and particularized and actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Hays, 515 U.S. at 743. As described above, Plaintiffs did not provide the Court with any factual assertions in the form of affidavits or stipulated facts necessary to meet the burden of proving Article III standing at the summary
-12-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 13 of 38 PageID #: 2116
judgment stage. Constitution Party, 639 F.3d at 420-22. Because none of the Plaintiffs can
prove injury-in-fact, they cannot prove a causal relationship between the injury and the
challenged conduct or that the injury likely will be redressed by a favorable decision as required
by Pucket v. Hot Springs School District No. 23-2, 526 F.3d 1151, 1157 (8th Cir. 2008). In
addition, Plaintiffs must prove that they have suffered an irreparable injury before the Court may
grant a permanent injunction. Monsanto Co., 130 S.Ct. at 2756. Without such a showing,
Plaintiffs claims must be dismissed.
2. Plaintiffs have not met the factors required for a permanent injunction.
A. Plaintiffs have not suffered an irreparable injury.
i. 14th Amendment Equal Protection Claim
"While it is axiomatic that voting is a fundamental right, it is also well established that
the state may provide structure to and limitations on the voting process which may impose
burdens on voters." NAACP v. Cortes, 591 F.Supp.2d 757, 764 (B.D. Penn. 2008)(citing
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983)). As the Supreme Court explained in Anderson:
Constitutional challenges to specific provisions of a State's election laws therefore cannot be resolved by any "litmus paper test" that will separate valid from invalid restrictions .... [A Court] must first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate. It then must identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications with burden imposed by its rule. In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those interests, it also must consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden plaintiffs rights. Only after weighing all these factors is the reviewing court in any position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional.
460 U.S. at 789.
Not every burden that a State's election system places on ballot access, voting, and association is unconstitutional. The relevant standard ... involves a balancing test between the severity of the burden and the importance of the State's interest:
[The Court] must first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff
-13-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 14 of 38 PageID #: 2117
seeks to vindicate. It then must identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule. In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those interests; it also must consider the extent to which those interests may give necessary to burden the plaintiff's rights. Only after weighing all these factors is the reviewing court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional.
Spencer v. Blackwell, 347 F. Supp. 2d 528,534 (S.D. Ohio 2004)(citing Anderson, 460 U.S. at
780)). "If an election regulation imposes a 'severe' burden, the State regulation must be narrowly
drawn to serve a compelling state interest ... If the regulation imposes a lesser burden, however,
the State regulation must be justified only by important state regulatory interest." Id.
In order to prove an equal protection claim, plaintiffs must allege and prove that a state
actor intentionally deprived them of a constitutional right. Ramratan v. New York City Board of
Elections, 2006 WL 2583742 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)(citing Shannon v. Jacobowitz, 394 F.3d 90, 95-96
(2d Cir.2005)). Federal courts must allow state courts to determine state election law absent a
showing that state actors "intentionally acted to deprive plaintiffs of their constitutional rights."
Ramratan 2006 WL 2583742 at * 4. A plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim must be
dismissed if Plaintiffs do not prove intended discrimination on the basis of race. Welch v.
McKenzie, 765 F.2d 1311, 1315 (5th Cir.1985).
"As in any suit under § 1983 the first inquiry is whether the plaintiff has been deprived
ofa right secured by the Constitution and laws." Hutchinson v. Miller, 797 F.2d 1279, 1282 (4th
Cir. 1986)(citing Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 140 (1979)).
The unlawful administration by state officers of a state statute fair on its face, resulting in its unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike, is not a denial of equal protection unless there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination. ... But a discriminatory purpose is not presumed ... there must be a showing of clear and intentional discrimination....
Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1,8 (1944)(internal quotation and citations omitted).
-14-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 15 of 38 PageID #: 2118
Mere violation of a state statute does not infringe the federal Constitution ... [because] [a] construction of the Equal Protection Clause which would find a violation of federal right in every departure by state officers from state law is not to be favored. Id. at 11-12 (internal citation omitted). See also Lunde v. Oldi, 808 F.2d 219,220-21 (2d Cir. 1986)(negligent actions of election officials which deprived plaintiff of his right to vote did not violate plaintiff's rights to equal protection and his complaint pursuant to U.S.C. § 1983 was properly dismissed). Plaintiffs showing of discrimination must be "clear and intentional." Id. "Plaintiffs must demonstrate more than a misunderstanding or a misapplication of the law on the part of the defendants, and mere speculation regarding defendants' alleged discriminatory intent
will not suffice." Dill v. Lake Pleasant Central School Dist., 2004 WL 2381528, * 4 (N.D.N.Y.
2004). The Eighth Circuit has held that Plaintiffs must plead discrimination because of race in
order to make out a VRA or § 1983 claim. Pettengill v. Putnam County R-1 School District, 472 F.2d 121, 122 (8th Cir. 1973). The Eighth Circuit explicitly adopted the rationale in Powell v. Power, 436 F.2d 84 (2d Cir. 1970), finding "no Constitutional basis" for overseeing "the administrative details of a local election" unless the denial of voting was for reasons of race. Pettengill, 472 F.2d at 122. The Powell court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege racial discrimination, or in other words, purposeful or intentional discrimination. Pettengill, 472 F.2d at 86.
Plaintiffs fail to provide any proof that the Shannon County Commissioners, in determining the number of in-person absentee voting days at a satellite office they could afford, purposefully discriminate against people of their own race. It is undisputed that Shannon County Commissioners have been majority Native American at all times relevant to this case, and Shannon County voters, 96% of which are Native American, easily elect their candidates of choice in county commission races. There simply is no evidence that Native American
-15-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 16 of 38 PageID #: 2119 commissioners, elected by a 95% Native American majority, chose the number of in-person absentee voting satellite office days in an effort to purposefully discriminate against their own people. All evidence indicates that these decisions were make due to severe funding shortages. The Court must dismiss the 14th Amendment claim, and the state constitutional claim for the same reasons. ii. The VRA In any Section 2 case, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the challenged situation constituted a cognizable claim under § 2 of the VRA, and based on the "totality of the circumstances," the challenged practice has resulted in members of a protected class having "less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." United States v. Jones, 57 F.3d 1020, 1023 (11th Cir. 1995)(quoting § 2, and citing Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 9-80 (1986)). The inquiry into the "totality of circumstances" is often guided by a number of factors set forth in the Senate Report accompanying the 1982 amendment. See League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 986 F.2d 728,844-45 (5th Cir. 1993). The Senate Factors are not always used in episodic cases, however. Section 2 cases, which have involved "entrenched electoral practices" such as at-large elections or existing district voting plans, utilize the Senate Factors. United States v. Brown, 494 F.Supp.2d 440 (S.D. Miss. 2007). This case, however, involves episodic, or "one of a kind" practices. The Senate Report notes that "[i]f the challenged practice relates to a series of events or episodes, the proof sufficient to establish a violation would not necessarily involve the same factors as the courts have utilized when dealing with permanent structural barriers." S.Rep. No. 97-417, at 207. Taking their cue from this comment, most of the relatively few courts that have addressed alleged episodic violations of § 2 generally have not applied the Senate Factors.
-16-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 17 of 38 PageID #: 2120
United States v. Jones, 846 F.Supp. 955,964 (S.D.Ala.l994)(citing Welch, 765 F.2d 1311, and
Brown v. Dean, 555 F.Supp. 502 (D.R.I.1982)). "Whether these factors are considered or not,
however, 'the ultimate test would be ... whether, in the particular situation, the (episodic)
practice operated to deny the minority (plaintiff) an equal opportunity to participate and to elect
candidates of their (sic) choice.'" Id. (quoting S.Rep. No. 97-417, at 30); Welch, 765 F.2d at
1315.
As described in U.S. v. Brown, it is not proper to apply the Gingles preconditions to a
non-districting § 2 VRA case. Id. Nor is it proper to apply the Senate Factors.
The Court in Thornburg distilled the Senate's factors into three "necessary preconditions" for establishing that a multimember district violates § 2: (1) the minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to comprise a majority in a single member district; (2) the minority group must be politically cohesive; and (3) the white majority must vote sufficiently as a group to defeat the minority group's preferred candidate. Thornburg, 478 U.S. at 50-51, 106 S.Ct. at 2766-2767. Although these factors have come to be applied to a variety of claims brought under the VRA, some have suggested that the particular inquiry proposed in Thornburg is more suited to the context of that case - to cases involving challenges to redistricting plans that allegedly dilute the minority vote through, for example, the use of multimember districts - than to cases alleging that the minority's right to vote has been denied by statute or by fraud. See, e.g., Ortiz v. Philadelphia Office of City Comm'rs Voting Registration Div., 824 F.Supp. 541, 523 (E.D.Pa.1993)(holding that the Senate factors are more appropriate guideposts of a § 2 violation in the context of a voter purge law than are the Thornburg factors, with the court observing that "[t]his conclusion does not reflect the view that Thornburg is only applicable to vote dilution claims; it merely reflects [the court's] view that the Thornburg factors, while probative in the context of vote dilution cases, are peripheral issues bearing little relevance to the plaintiffs' claim presently before the court"); See also Andrew L. Shapiro, Note, Challenging Criminal Diserifranchisement Under the VRA: A New Strategy, 103 Yale L.J. 537, 555 (1993)(notingthat "[c]ourt opinions often do not distinguish between vote denial and vote dilution, and courts have applied vote dilution standards to cases involving vote denial"). In the instant case, I find that the Senate factors are more useful in addressing the allegations at issue, particularly given that the third Thornburg factor - demonstrating the defeat of the minority's preferred candidate by the white majority - is wholly inapplicable to an election in a district that is 90% African American and Latino, and in which a Latino candidate has been elected for over twenty years.
-17-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 18 of 38 PageID #: 2121 Denis v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 1994 WL 613330, *6, n.6 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). In Denis, the plaintiffs' brought a non-redistricting case under § 2 ofthe VRA. The court found that the proper test was the "totality of the circumstances" test, which included the familiar Senate Factors. Id. at * 2, *5-6. The court, though citing Gingles, recognized that the preconditions were not at issue in a non-redistricting case, and found the totality of the circumstances factors to be those listed in the Senate Factors. Id.
Defendants have found no non-redistricting § 2 VRA cases that use the Gingles preconditions, due to legal precedent, the Senate legislative history, and sheer common sense. The preconditions on their face address redistricting claims, and play no part in the legal determination of this case. Rather, the Court must use the ultimate test - whether the Plaintiffs have less opportunity (not convenience) to vote and are unable to elect their candidate of choice in county elections.
a. Plaintiffs fail to plead a cognizable claim under the VRA Plaintiffs cannot succeed on the merits of their VRA allegation. The essence of Plaintiffs' claim is the Native American Plaintiffs of Shannon County are treated differently than whites in other South Dakota counties. Plaintiffs do not allege that Shannon County Native American plaintiffs are treated differently than Shannon County whites, which is the proper standard of comparison under the VRA. Plaintiffs' proposed comparison cannot serve as a basis for a VRA claim under the law. An analogous case ruled on nearly the exact issue presently before this Court. In Jacksonville Coalition for Voter Protection v. Hood, 351 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1335-36 (N.D. Fla. 2004), the plaintiffs sued for more early polling places. The Court found the plaintiffs were not likely to prevail on the merits. A detailed review of this case is instructive. The Jacksonville Coalition court stated as follows:
-18-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 19 of 38 PageID #: 2122
Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction argues that "African Americans in Duval County have less opportunity than other members of the state's electorate to vote in the upcoming election."... Their claim is based on the fact that Duval County has the largest percentage of African-American registered voters of any major county in the state, and, yet, other similarly sized counties with smaller African-American registered voter percentages have more early voting sites. Based on this, Plaintiffs argue that African-American voters in Duval County are disproportionately affected and, therefore, that the County's implementation of early voting procedures violates Section 2 of the VRA of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973.
Plaintiffs also assert a claim pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983 in that Defendants' actions constitute a violation of their rights under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Lastly, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant Hood has a duty to ensure that the state's election laws are applied uniformly throughout the state, and that this duty has been violated by Duval County's having fewer early polling sites than similarly-sized counties. Fla. Stat. §97.012.
Id. at 1330.
A summary of Plaintiffs' argument is necessary at this point. Duval County has the largest percentage of African-American registered voters of Florida's most densely populated counties. Yet, Duval County only has five early polling sites, while similarly-sized counties with smaller percentages of African-American registered voters have more early voting sites.....The Court understands Plaintiffs to argue that because the percentage of African-American registered voters is higher in Duval County than other counties in Florida, any decision to have a smaller number of early voting sites in Duval County regardless of their placement will have a disproportionate impact on African-American registered voters and results in a Section 2 violation.
Id. at 1334. One would be hard pressed to find a more analogous case than Jacksonville on both
the facts and law.
In determining Plaintiffs' argument regarding access to early voting locations, the
Jacksonville court stated as follows:
While it may be true that having to drive to an early voting site and having to wait in line may cause people to be inconvenienced, inconvenience does not result in a denial of "meaningful access to the political process." Osburn, 369 F.3d at 1289. Nor does the Court have the authority to order the opening of additional sites based merely on the convenience of voters.
-19-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 20 of 38 PageID #: 2123
Id. at 1335. The Jacksonville Coalition court addressed the plaintiffs' argument that a § 2 VRA
violation exists when some counties with fewer minorities have more early polling places.
The Court also notes that an acceptance of Plaintiffs' argument that a Section 2 violation occurs merely because some counties have more early polling sites would have far-reaching implications. Consider the fact that many states do not engage in any form of early voting. Following Plaintiffs' theory to its next logical step, it would seem that if a state with a higher percentage of registered AfricanAmerican voters than Florida did not implement an early voting program a Section 2 violation would occur because African-American voters in that state would have less of an opportunity to vote than voters in Florida. It would also follow that a Section 2 violation could occur in Florida if a state with a lower percentage of African-American voters employed an early voting system, as commented on above, that lasts three weeks instead of the two week system currently used in Florida. This simply cannot be the standard for establishing a Section 2 violation.
Jacksonville Coalition at 1335-36. The court concluded with the following finding:
While additional early voting sites for all voters, regardless of whom they might vote for, is a laudable goal, such a decision is not one for a federal court to order under the present circumstances. Instead, the power to do so under the Constitution and federal and state election laws under the facts in this case is left to the executive and legislative branches of both governments. Accordingly, because the remedy sought has no correlation to a race-based "meaningful access" case or to a race-based discrimination case, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction ... is DENIED.
Id. at 1337-38.
The Jacksonville Coalition plaintiffs pursued the same legal theories as Plaintiffs do in
this case. The Court should deny a preliminary injunction on the same reasoning and law as
relied upon by the Jacksonville Coalition court.
A ruling in Plaintiffs' favor would open the floodgates to voting rights litigation. Any
county with a higher minority population than another county, but with fewer early voting
locations or hours, would be liable under the VRA. Any county with a higher minority
population than another county, but with a farther drive for voters to the county courthouse,
would be liable under the VRA. Any city with a higher minority population than another city,
but a longer wait to early vote, would liable under the VRA. Any school district with no early
-20-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 21 of 38 PageID #: 2124
voting location, as opposed to another school district in the state or nation with an early voting location and fewer minorities, would be liable under the VRA. Any state that does not allow early voting, compared to another state that does and has fewer minorities, would be liable under the VRA. A favorable ruling for the Plaintiffs in this case would defy all previous VRA decisions on this issue, and pave the way for every political jurisdiction to be liable due to comparisons with any other political jurisdiction. As the Jacksonville Coalition court determined, Plaintiffs' proposed standard has such far-reaching implications that it "simply cannot be the standard for establishing a Section 2 violation." Id. at 1335-36.
The Southern District of New York held in accord. In Denis v. New York City Board of Elections, 1994 WL 613330 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), a non-redistricting § 2 VRA case, the court found that there was no legal authority to support the plaintiffs' assertion that their political subdivision at issue, a district within New York City, should be compared to other districts for comparison. Id. The plaintiffs in Denis argued that a VRA violation existed whenever voting irregularities occur in a predominately minority district, but not in predominantly white districts - even when the elections at issue are for district representatives. Id. The Denis plaintiffs suggested that the minority's vote was diluted city-wide because the voting irregularities that allegedly occurred only in minority districts had the effect of giving the vote of the average minority voter less weight than the vote ofthe average white voter in New York. Id. Significantly, the court held as follows:
If such a claim were cognizable under the VRA, the Act would be converted into a voting fraud statute that could be used to challenge any voting irregularities occurring in minority communities. This is not a plausible interpretation of either the language or the purpose of the VRA. Id. The Denis plaintiffs alleged the precise allegation at issue in this case - that a predominately minority political subdivision (Shannon County/District 68 of New York) provided different voting opportunities than other political subdivisions (other counties in South Dakota/other
-21-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 22 of 38 PageID #: 2125
districts in New York City). The Denis court found this claim not cognizable under the VRA.
Id. at * 7. Interchanging the parties and jurisdiction relevant to this case into the holding from
the Denis court, we get the following: That is, plaintiffs suggest that the [Native American] vote was diluted [state]-wide because the voting irregularities that allegedly occurred only in [Shannon County] had the effect of giving the vote of the average [Native American] voter less weight than the vote of the average white [South Dakota] voter. If such a claim were cognizable under the VRA, the Act would be converted to a voting fraud statute that could be used to challenge any voting irregularities occurring in minority communities. This is not a plausible interpretation of either the language or the purpose of the VRA.
Denis is so analogous that the parties and jurisdiction can be interchanged neatly. The Denis case is precisely on point and directly analogous to this case. As in Jacksonville, the courts uniformly dismiss such claims as not cognizable under the VRA.
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs cite Spirit Lake Tribe v. Benson County, North Dakota, 2010 W.L. 4226614 (D.N.D. 2010). This case indicates that the appropriate scope to determine unequal voter participation is within the county at issue. In Spirit Lake Tribe, the plaintiffs alleged that the closure of seven voting places on Spirit Lake Reservation within Benson County violated the law by not allowing Native Americans equal access to voting places. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the county from closing voting places located on the Spirit Lake Reservation and within Benson County. Id. at *2. The Court cited the VRA, which indicates that in order to determine disparate impact, the Court must analyze whether participation is equally open "in the state or political subdivision." Id. (citing the VRA, § 1973(b)). The Spirit Lake case was not brought against the state but rather against the political subdivision of Benson County. Therefore, the proper analysis focuses on the totality of the circumstances shown in the political subdivision (Benson County) and whether such circumstances demonstrate that county elections are not equally open to participation by Spirit Lake tribal members as other residents of Benson County. The Court analyzed whether there
-22-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 23 of 38 PageID #: 2126 were burdens that fell on the voting process on the Spirit Lake Reservation that did not exist elsewhere in Benson County. Id. at 5. The Court did not look at the burdens that fell on the voting process on the Spirit Lake Reservation that did not exist elsewhere in North Dakota. This distinction is significant. The Court held that "[A] system that might be entirely appropriate for the County as a whole, could well create significant burden on voting within the confines of the Spirit Lake Reservation." Id. at 5. The Court found that there was a much greater risk that the Native American population of Benson County would be disenfranchised by the adoption of the voting plan when compared to the dominant population's risk. Id. at 5. Again, the Court did not compare the Native American population's ability to vote as compared to the entire North Dakota population in their respective counties. The Court analyzed minority versus whites' access to polls within Benson County.
The very essence of Plaintiffs' claim, alleging a VRA violation because the Shannon County Native Americans have less opportunity to vote than white South Dakota residents in other counties, does not state a cognizable claim under the VRA. The Court should dismiss the VRAclaim.
h. Plaintiffs have not proven a § 2 VRA claim. Plaintiffs must prove a causal connection between the challenged practice and some harm. A failure to show causation is dispositive. Id. at 407, FN35. In a very recent case, the Ninth Circuit, in Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012), the court dealt with whether a new law requiring documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote and requiring registered voters to present proof of identification to cast a ballot violated § 2 of the VRA. Gonzalez is a recent non-redistricting case in which the plaintiffs sought an injunction to prohibit these election law changes. Id. at 388. The decision focused primarily on the election law change to polling places. Id. at 404. The Gonzalez court recognized that the totality of the
-23-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 24 of 38 PageID #: 2127 circumstances test applies, not the Gingles preconditions. rd. at 405. The court recognized that a § 2 VRA plaintiff can prevail only if "based on the totality of the circumstances, ... the challenged voting practice results in discrimination on account of race." rd. (internal citations omitted). "[P]roof of causal connection between the challenged voting practice and a prohibited discriminatory result is crucial." rd. (internal quotations omitted). The court recognized that "a bare statistical showing of disproportionate impact on a racial minority does not satisfy the Section 2 'results' inquiry." rd. "Said otherwise, a Section 2 challenge 'based purely on a showing of some relevant statistical disparity between minorities and whites,' without any evidence of the challenged voting qualification causes that disparity, will be rejected." rd. The Gonzalez plaintiffs alleged that the election law changes requiring proof of citizenship to register and identification to vote unlawfully diluted Latino voters by providing them with less opportunity than other members than the electorate to participate in the political process. rd. at 406. The district court found that the election law changes did not have a statistically significant disparate impact on Latino voters. rd. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs' claim failed because there was no proof of a causal relationship between the election law changes and any alleged discriminatory impact on Latinos. rd. at 406. No expert testified to a causal connection between the election law requirements and the observed difference in voting rates of Latinos, and Gonzalez had failed to explain how the election law change interacted with the social and historical climate of discrimination to impact Latino voting in Arizona. rd. The Gonzalez court recognized that a § 2 analysis requires a "searching practical evaluation of the past and present reality, and that such examination is intensely fact-based and localized." rd. (internal citations and quotations omitted, emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the district court did not clearly err in its finding. "To prove a § 2 violation, Gonzalez had to establish that this requirement, as applied to
-24-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 25 of 38 PageID #: 2128 Latinos, caused a prohibited discriminatory result." Here, Gonzalez alleged that single "Latinos, among other ethnic groups, are less likely to possess the forms of identification required under [the election law changes] to cast a ballot, 'but produced no evidence supporting this allegation. ", Id. at 407. Although the record contained Arizona's general history of discrimination against Latinos and the existence of racially polarized voting, Gonzales provided no evidence that Latinos' ability or inability to obtain or possess I.D. resulted in Latinos having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect the representatives of their choice. Id. As in Gonzales, the Brooks Plaintiffs have produced no evidence of Plaintiffs' own inability to previously access in-person absentee voting within Shannon County resulting in Plaintiffs (or even Shannon County Native Americans in general) having less opportunity to participate in the political process. Plaintiffs allege that Shannon County's past in-person absentee voting arrangements caused low Shannon County voter turnout, but produce no competent, non-speculative evidence supporting the allegation, and the statistical data proves otherwise. Not a single Plaintiff utilized in-person absentee voting at the satellite office, open the full statutory period within Shannon County, for the June 2012 primary election.3 (SMF § 42.) Not a single Plaintiff has testified that he/she votes when such in-person absentee voting satellite office is or has been provided, whereas he/she does not vote otherwise. Nor does the evidence of the 25 Plaintiffs' voting behavior demonstrate that they were not able to utilize the satellite office in Shannon County when it has been offered, that they could not vote on Election Day, or that they could not or even have not voted by mail in the past. There is no evidence whatsoever that
3 In paragraph 100 of the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they "desire to vote early at an in-person absentee voting location in Shannon County in the spring 2012 primary election ... at some point during the 46 day early vote period authorized by South Dakota law." The 25 Plaintiffs sued for this convenience, then not one of them used it.
-25-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 26 of 38 PageID #: 2129
the Plaintiffs themselves voted more when in-person absentee voting was offered within their county.
The statistical data is as compelling. Shannon County voter turnout in primary elections has an inverse relationship to the number of in-person absentee voting satellite days available within Shannon County. (SMF ~ 29.) In other words, Shannon County voter turnout decreases in primary elections when the County offers more in-person absentee voting. Id. The Shannon County voter turnout rate for general elections does not support the contention that satellite office access within the county stimulates voter turnout. (SMF ~~ 26-42).
The scholarly literature discussing the research in this area is in accord. Plaintiffs cite to no evidence whatsoever indicating a causal or even statistical relationship between in-person absentee voting and increased voter turnout. There is no evidence of a causal or even statistical relationship between in-person absentee voting and increased voter turnout in the nation, state, or county. (SMF ~~ 26-42.) There certainly are no such findings suggesting minorities' voter turnout rates increase due to in-person absentee voting.4 (SMF ~ 27). These issues are critical to Plaintiffs' case even if their case is cognizable under the VRA, and Plaintiffs have not met their burden.
Every court where a jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction comparison served as a basis for a plaintiff's § 2 VRA claim (rather than a comparison of the minority race versus the majority race in the same jurisdiction), has dismissed the claim as not cognizable under the VRA. If this Court allows Plaintiffs' VRA claim to survive, it must find that Plaintiffs have not proven their § 2 VRA case. If the Court does not dismiss this claim for failing to prove a cognizable claim under
4 In the ACLU's amicus brief, filed March 5, 2012, the ACLU cited the National Congress of American Indians' effort to increase Native American voter turnout for the increase in turnout in 2004. The First American Education Project, "Native Vote 2004: A National Survey and Analysis of Efforts to Increase the Native Vote in 2004, and the Results Achieved," is cited. This literature discusses the many things that have driven increased Native American voter participation, including economic development, educational improvement, visits from candidates such as Obama and Clinton, etc. Early voting is not cited as driving increased Native American voter turnout.
-26-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 27 of 38 PageID #: 2130 the VRA, it would be the first Court in the nation to allow such a claim to move forward, and would open the floodgates to allow comparisons of one jurisdiction's voting practices/laws against another's, and those scenarios are endless. In the alternative, if such a case is viable under the VRA, Plaintiffs have not shown any causal connection between the harm they claim they suffered (less access to voting) to the practice they allege as violative (limited in-person absentee voting within Shannon County in previous years), as they have provided no evidence indicating that they are able to or do vote due to in-person absentee access and do not or cannot vote without the same. Without such evidence, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between the past challenged voting practice and any harm.
c. Plaintiffs have not proven that they have less opportunity than white voters in Shannon County to elect representatives of their choice. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Plaintiffs have not been able to elect candidates of their choice. In order to make out a § 2 VRA claim, the Supreme Court has held that Plaintiffs must prove both 1) that the members of the protected class have less opportunity to participate in the political process; and 2) the minority class members' inability to elect representatives of their choice. Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 397 (1991). It is not enough to simply prove the first of the two elements - that the members of the protected class have less opportunity to participate in the political process. Id. "The statute does not create two separate and distinct rights." Id. "It would distort the plain meaning of the sentence [in Section 2 of the VRA] to substitute the word "or" for the word "and" such radical surgery would be required to separate the opportunity to participate from the opportunity to elect." Id. In both White v. Register, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), and Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971), "[t]he Court identified the opportunity to participate and the opportunity to elect as inextricably linked." Id. at 397. "For all such claims must allege an abridgement of the opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives to one's choice." Id. at 398.
-27-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 28 of 38 PageID #: 2131
A district court within the Eighth Circuit held in accord with binding U.S. Supreme Court
case law in Jacob v. Board of Directors of Little Rock School District, 2006 WL 2792172 (RD.
Ark. 2006). In Jacob, plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunction seeking a court order to
establish an early voting site other than at the Polasky County courthouse. Id. at * 1. The Court
denied the motion, finding that voters still had the option of early voting at the Polasky County
courthouse. Id. As legal cause to support plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiffs
asserted that the denial of an early voting site has a tendency to diminish the ability of minorities
to elect school board representatives of their choice. Id. The Jacobs Court found as follows:
Plaintiffs' arguments regarding a negative impact on persons of color in the ability to elect school board representatives of their choice is seriously eroded by the recent school board election results. The African American candidates fared very well in the recent school board elections..... The evidence refutes Plaintiffs' earlier assertion that Court intervention was necessary or otherwise [the minority voters] will have less chance to elect representatives of their choice. Clearly African American voters were neither disproportionately affected nor disenfranchised by holding early voting only at the Polasky County courthouse. ....In short Plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence or even a colorable theory that would permit this Court's further inquiry by conducting a hearing on the issue of preliminary injunctive relief.
Id. at 2, (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Jacobs court went on to note the
following:
Plaintiffs have largely ignored the linchpin of injunctive relief - irreparable harm. Neither Plaintiffs nor Interveners have clearly stated their theory of irreparable harm. Like their first motion, their apparent theory is that their votes will be diluted due to the lack of additional early voting sites. That contention is disproved, however, by the actual election results and by the racial breakdown of early voters.
*****
The reasons asserted by the [Defendant] for not conducting early voting at the "polling place requested by Plaintiffs" appear valid. Certainly the [Defendants] have asserted legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision and has controverted Plaintiff's assertion that "there is no legitimate reason which can support denying the requested release." Once again, "[t]here is no evidence that the [Defendant] has exercised its lawful discretion in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner." Voters who wish to early vote may do so, either by traveling to the Polasky County courthouse during the early voting period or by absentee ballot. .,.
-28-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 29 of 38 PageID #: 2132
*****
The [Defendant] has the right to run its own affairs free from the intrusion of federal courts unless and until it is shown that it is depriving citizens of rights guaranteed by federal law. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiffs have not offered proof that Native Americans in Shannon County have less opportunity to vote than white Shannon County residents. Nor have Plaintiffs alleged or offered proof that Native American Shannon County residents have less chance to elect candidates of their choice as compared to white Shannon County voters. Neither have Plaintiffs alleged that they themselves could not early vote on the days Shannon County approved for early voting in past elections. Plaintiffs have likewise not alleged that they could not early vote by driving to Hot Springs or by mail in previous elections. And Plaintiffs have not alleged that they could vote on Election Day in the convenience of their own local precincts in previous elections. Without showing an inability to vote without in-person absentee voting within their county, and therefore an inability to elect candidates of their choice, Plaintiffs cannot win on the merits of their claim. "A vote 'dilution' claim alleges that a particular practice operates 'to cancel out or minimize the voting strength' of a minority group." Hall v. Virginia, 385 F.3d 421,427 (4th Cir. 2004)(citing White v. Register, 412 U.S. 755, 765 (1973)). "In tern, a minority group's 'voting strength' is measured in terms of its' ability to elect candidates to public office." Id. (citing Gingles, 478 U.S. at 88). Any claim that the voting strength of a minority group has been "diluted" must be measured against some reasonable benchmark of "undiluted" minority voting strength as Justice Frankfurter once observed, "[t]alk of 'debasement' or 'dilution' is circular talk. One cannot speak of 'debasement' or 'dilution' of the value of a vote until there is first defined a standard of reference as to what a vote should be worth.
-29-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 30 of 38 PageID #: 2133
Id. at 428. Unless minority voters possess the potential to elect representatives in the absence of
the challenged structure or practice, they cannot claim to have been injured by that structure or
practice. Id. (emphasis added)(citing Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50, n.17).
Plaintiffs must prove that their ability to elect candidates of their choice was within their
grasp, but is denied by the current voting practice. Id. at 430. It is undisputed that Native
Americans make up the vast majority of Shannon County and can easily elect their candidates of
choice in Shannon County elections, school district elections, city elections, District 27 elections,
and any other local elections. Because they cannot establish their burden using any elections that
actually occur within the political subdivision at issue - Shannon County -- plaintiffs assert that
they cannot elect their candidates of choice in state-wide elections. Yet, Shannon County Native
Americans voters could never form anything but a minority of the voters who vote in state-wide
elections and therefore Shannon County Native Americans' ability to elect candidates oftheir
own choice in state-wide elections was never within their grasp. Id.
Section 2 is not violated unless minorities "have less opportunity than other members ofthe electorate to .,. elect representatives of their choice." ... As a result, the question facing the plaintiffs is not whether a black-preferred candidate can be elected in the Fourth District after the 2001 Redistricting Plan. The question is whether black voters have less opportunity, in comparison to other voters of similar strength in the jurisdiction, to form a majority in the Fourth District, and thereby elect a candidate oftheir choice."
Id., (citing Gingles, 478 U.S. at 44).
.. .. the 2001 redistricting plan does not change this fact for black voters in the Fourth District; their political fortunes remain tied to the interests of other voters in the district. Because the same is true for all other groups in the Fourth District that are too small to dominate an election with their own votes, the plaintiffs cannot establish that black voters in the Fourth District have less opportunity "than other members of the electorate" to elect candidates of their choice."
Id. at 431.
As in Hall, Plaintiffs have not alleged nor proven that they have less voting opportunity
than white residents of Shannon County. Because they lose under the relevant legal standard,
-30-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 31 of 38 PageID #: 2134
Plaintiffs ask the Court to widen the relevant VRA considerations to state-wide elections. But Shannon County Democrat Native Americans never had the opportunity to win state-wide elections, as it is undisputed that South Dakota is majority Republican and votes as such in statewide elections (with the exception of Congressional elections). Because Shannon County Native Americans are, and always will be "too small to dominate an election with their own votes" in South Dakota state-wide elections, other than Congressional elections, it is improper to widen the scope to state-wide elections. See Id.
B. Because there has been no injury, Plaintiffs cannot show they have no remedies available at law to compensate for an injury.
Plaintiffs' case is moot, they have not proven an injury-in-fact, nor have they pleaded a cognizable VRA claim. It follows that Plaintiffs cannot prove the second requirement either.
c. The balance of hardships between the Plaintiffs and Defendants
Under the VRA, the Supreme Court has instructed that the Court's analysis must engage in a "searching practical evaluation of the past and present reality." Thornburg v. Gingles 478 U.S. 30, 37 (1986). Balancing a county's cost to provide voting places is a consideration under the balance of harms factor. Spirit Lake Tribe v. Benson County, North Dakota, 2010 WL 4226614 at 5 (D.N.D. 2010). Certainly, the costs of what Plaintiffs propose should be weighed in terms of the Plaintiffs' complete indifference and avoidance of voting in the June 2012 primary at the in-person absentee voting satellite location within Shannon County, the satellite office's overall dismal usage rate, and the high cost per voter who actually used the location. Considering these real and non-speculative facts, as opposed to Plaintiffs' unsupported allegations, the Court must properly search and practically evaluate the present reality of the absentee voting facts in Shannon County, and the hardships at risk.
Severe funding constraints have already required Shannon County to completely eliminate funding for its county programs. These drastic cuts and eliminations freed up funds to
-31-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 32 of 38 PageID #: 2135 allow Shannon County to provide only regular election services. There simply are no funds to provide in-person absentee voting other than through the method Defendants have currently worked out with HAVA funding with the Secretary of State. Any other requirements forced upon Shannon County will cause harm to its residents. The harm to Shannon County and its residents is already extreme. Ordering anything other than what Shannon County is already doing (which is precisely what Plaintiffs sued for) harms Shannon County residents far more than it benefits them. The Court must also consider the dire situation it which it would place Shannon County should the Court order anything other than what it is currently doing (which is exactly what Plaintiffs requested). No local government should be forced to cut even more statutorilyrequired governmental services, opening up many other avenues of liability and disservice to its citizens, to provide something more than the currently-offered but virtually unused voting convenience. The balance of harms weighs heavily against Plaintiffs' request. D. The public interest would be disserved in granting an unnecessary permanent injunction. As indicated above, the residents of Shannon County can currently in-person vote absentee for the full statutory period at a satellite location in Shannon County, and will be able to through January 1,2019. Shannon County voters have always been able to vote absentee by mail, or with the assistance of the Lakota Coordinator who makes home visits, or in Hot Springs. Shannon County residents no longer have a funded criminal justice system, poor relief services, weed control, and other valuable and necessary services for its people. The public's interest is not in having Shannon County provide one and only one county service. Rather, the public has an extremely strong interest in Shannon County providing all services counties should provide. All of the county's extremely scarce resources should not be judicially mandated to be spent on
-32-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 33 of 38 PageID #: 2136
only one service, and particularly when it is so sparsely used by the public and entirely unused
by the Plaintiffs themselves.
Local governmental officials should be allowed to make the hard choices as to how to
prioritize their finances, while remaining accountable to the voters through the election process.
Litigation of this sort throws out the window all consideration regarding the budget, including
other state- or federally-required governmental services that counties must fund. Those services,
if unfunded and not provided, subject the county to lawsuits in other areas. It is fundamentally
unfair and inequitable to force Shannon County through litigation to spend every last penny it
has on funding elections when it has numerous other governmental functions it is required under
law to provide.
2. Defendants have 11th Amendment Immunity
While in most cases the 11th Amendment does not apply to counties, it does in certain
situations. The Supreme Court held in Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465
U.S. 89, 124 Fn. 34 (1984), as follows:
...[W]e have applied the Amendment to bar release against county officials "in order to protect the state treasury from liability that would have had essentially the same practical consequences as a judgment against the State itself." Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391,
401,99 S.Ct. 1171, 177,59 L. Ed. 2d 401(1979). See e.g., Edelman v. Jordan,
supra (11 th Amendment bars suit against state and county officials for retroactive award of welfare benefits). The Courts of Appeals are in general agreement that a suit against officials of a county or other governmental entity is barred if the relief obtained runs against the state. See e.g., Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, 594 F.2d 489, 493 (5th Cir.l979); Carey v. Quem, 588 F. 2d 230,233-234 (7th Cir.l978); Incarcerated Men of Allen County Jail v. Fair, 507 F. 2d 281,287288 (6th Cir.l974); Harris v. Tooele County School District, 471 F. 2d 218,220 (10th Cir.l973). Given that the actions of the county commissioners and mentalhealth administrators are dependent on funding from the State, it may be that relief granted against these county officials, when exercising their functions under the MHlMR Act effectively runs against the State. Farr v. Chesney, 441 F. Supp. 127, 130-132 (D.C. Pa. 1977)(holdingthat Pennsylvania county commissioners acting as members of the board of the County Office of Mental Health and Retardation, may not be sued for back pay under the 11th Amendment).
-33-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 34 of 38 PageID #: 2137
So too in this case, a ruling against Shannon County implicates state funding. Eleventh Amendment immunity applies in such a context, barring Plaintiffs' claims.
That immunity extends to state law claims in federal courts. Federal courts cannot maintain a state law claim when Eleventh Amendment immunity is asserted. To the extent Plaintiffs' allege a state law claim, it is precluded by the State's Eleventh Amendment Immunity.
The Eleventh Amendment bars federal court jurisdiction over state law claims against unconsenting states or state officials when the state is the real, substantial party in interest, regardless of the remedy sought...[t]his constitutional bar applies with equal force to pendent state law claims. Cooper v. st. Cloud State University, 226 F.3d 964,968 (8th Cir. 2000)(citing Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984)). For claims alleging violations of state law, prospective injunctive relief allowed by Ex Parte Young is unavailable to Plaintiffs. Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 106 (stating that "it is difficult to think of a greater intrusion on state sovereignty that when a federal court instructs state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law."); Entergy, Arkansas v. Nebraska, 210 F.3d 997,897 (8th Cir. 2000). With the assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity the State law claims are barred in all respects. Plaintiffs' have not contested that there is no private right of action under HAVA. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that Secretary of State Gant's disbursement of HAVA funds violates § 2 of the VRA. Plaintiffs' may not plead around their problem of a lack of standing by using the VRA. Rose v. Bank of America, 200 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1448-1449 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)(ifno private right of enforcement is established, Plaintiffs' may not maintain a claim under other statute); Glenn K. Jackson, Inc. v. Roe, 273 F.3d 1192, 1203 (9th Cir. 2001)(plaintiff cannot plead around bars to relief found in other causes of action.); Monroe v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, 115 F.3d 514, 519-520 (5th Cir. 1997)(Plaintiff cannot "artfully plead" around preemptive effect of other statute). Congress specifically granted the States immunity from suit for implementation of aHAVA plan. 42 U.S.C. § 15404(c).
-34-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 35 of 38 PageID #: 2138
CONCLUSION If Plaintiffs' case survives Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on Mootness Grounds, Plaintiffs lack standing. Plaintiffs also cannot meet the four factors required before a permanent injunction may issue. As just one of the permanent injunction factors, Plaintiffs must plead cognizable 14th Amendment and VRA claims. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Shannon County Commission, the Defendants responsible for determining whether and how many inperson absentee satellite voting days they can afford, made their decisions in years past with intent to discriminate against Native American voters. Plaintiffs have also not pleaded a legallycognizable claim under the VRA, as indicated by every non-redistricting case reported that dealt with the scenario of basing a VRA claim on comparisons of one jurisdiction against another (rather than comparisons of the effect on one race versus another race within the same jurisdiction). Plaintiffs have also failed to prove a § 2 violation. The permanent injunction factors weigh in favor of Defendants, and the Court should grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dated: October 1, 2012.
GUNDERSON, PALMER, NELSON & ASHMORE, L.L.P.
By: /s/Sara PranRenstein Sara Frankenstein Attorneyfor Defendants: Shannon County, Fall River County, Fall River Board of Commissions, Joe Falkenburg, Anne Cassens, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Joe Allen, Shannon County Board of Commissions, Bryan J. Kehn, Deloris Hagman, Eugenio B.White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull, and Lyla Hutchison, Sue Ganje and James Sword
-35-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 36 of 38 PageID #: 2139 P.O. Box 8045 Rapid City, SD 57709 Telephone: (605) 342-1078 Telefax: (605) 342-0480 E-mail: sfrankenstein@gpnalaw.com
-36-

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 37 of 38 PageID #: 2140

Dated this 1st day of October, 2012.

MARTY J. JACKLEY

A'IT

. RAL

ichard M. Wi1liam~ 1302 E. Hwy 14, Suite 1 Pierre, SD 57501 1-605-773-3215 Rich.WilliamS@state.sd.us

Case 5:12-cv-05003-KES Document 102 Filed 10/01/12 Page 38 of 38 PageID #: 2141
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on October 1, 2012, a true and correct copy of MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COUNTY DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT was served electronically through the CMlECF system upon the following individuals:
Steven D. Sandven Steven D. Sandven Law Offices 300 North Dakota Avenue, Suite 106
Sioux Falls, SD 57104 E-mail: ssandvenlaw@aol.com
Attorneyfor Plaintiffs,
and Richard M. Williams Attorney General's Office
Sahr Building 222 East Capitol Avenue, Suite #15
Pierre, SD 57501 E-mail: Rich.Williams@state.sd.us
Attorneyfor Defendant, Jason Gant
By: !slSara Prankenstein Sara Frankenstein
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 (B)(1), the undersigned counsel, relying on the Microsoft Word word count function, certifies that the body of this brief contains 11,993 words, excluding the caption, signature blocks, and this certificate.
By: Is/Sara Frankenstein Sara Frankenstein
-37-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURf
 DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
 WESTERN DIVISION


CHRIS BROOKS, FRANCIS RENCOUNTRE, GLORIA RED EAGLE,
 SHARON CONDEN, JACQUELINE GARNIER, JENNIFER RED OWL, EDWINA WESTON, MICHELLE WESTON, MONEITE lWO EAGLE, MARK A. MESTETH, STACY lWO LANCE, HARRY BROWN, ELEANOR WESTON, DAWN BLACK BULL, CLARICE MESTETH, DONOVAN L. STEELE, EILEEN JANIS, LEONA LITILE HAWK, EVAN RENCOUNTRE, CECIL UTILE HAWK, SR., LINDA RED CLOUD, LOREnA LITILE HAWK, FAITH lWO EAGLE, EDMOND MESTETH, and ELMER KILLS BACK, JR.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JASON GANT, in his official capacity as South Dakota Secretary of State, SHANNON COUNTI, SOUTH DAKOTA, FALL RIVER COUNTI, SOUTH DAKOTA, SHANNON COUNTI BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
 FALL RIVER COUNTI BOARD OF
 COMMISSIONERS, JOE FALKENBUERG, in his official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Fall River County, South Dakota, ANNE CASSENS, in her offiCial capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Fall River County, South Dakota, MICHAEL P. ORfNER, in his official capacity as a member of the County Board

)

CN. 12-5003-KES

)

)


)

)

)

) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

) MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING

)

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR

) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS

)

MOOT

)

)

)

)

)

)


)

)

)

)

)

)

)


)

)

)


)


)


)


)


)


)


)


)


)


)

)

)

)

)


)

)

)

)

)

)

)

of Commissioners for Fall River County, )

South Dakota,

)

DEB RUSSELL, in her official capacity as a )

member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Fall River County,

)

South Dakota,

)

JOE ALLEN, in his official capacity as a

)

member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Fall River County,

)

South Dakota,

)

BRYAN J. KEHN, in his official capacity as a )

member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Shannon

)

County, South Dakota,

)

DELORIS HAGMAN, in her official capacity )

as a member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Shannon

)

County, South Dakota.

)

EUGENIO B. WHITE HAWK, in his official )

capacity as a member of the County Board of)

Commissioners for Shannon County, South )

Dak~,

)

WENDELL YELLOW BULL, in his official )

capacity as a member of the County Board of)

Commissioners for Shannon County, South )

Dakota,

)

LYLA HUTCHISON, in her official capacity as)

a member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Shannon

)

County, South Dakota,

)

SUE GANJE, in her official capacity as the )

County Auditor for Shannon and Fall River )

Counties, and

)

JAMES SWORD, in his official

)

capacity as Attorney for Shannon and Fall )

River Counties,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction compelling defendants to

establish satellite early voting locations within Shannon County for the full 46

days of in-person absentee voting that is allowed under South Dakota law.

Docket 2. Plaintiffs claim that the lack of early voting in Shannon County has a

disparate impact on Native Americans' voting rights and significantly hinders

2


the ability of Native Americans to participate in the political process. Defendants resist this motion. Docket 44 & 45. Defendants move the court to dismiss plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction because the claim is moot. Docket 55. Plaintiffs resist that motion. Docket 58. For the following reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is granted, and plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied as moot.
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs requested a hearing as to whether preliminary injunctive relief was appropriate for the matters in dispute in this case. Plaintiffs specifically requested that the court "enter a preliminary injunction directing Defendants to designate at least one early voting sight [sic] in Shannon County, to be open dUring regular business hours starting 46 days before the primary and general elections[.]" Docket 15 at 2. The court set a hearing date for March 8, 2012. On March 6, 2012, defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on the grounds that it was now moot due to the county's voluntary cessation of the allegedly injurious conduct and because all requested preliminary relief had been granted. Docket 55. The court heard evidence and oral argument on defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on March 8, 2012. The court gave an oral order granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' request for preliminary relief and denying plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction as moot. This written order supplements the court's oral order.
3


DISCUSSION Defendants argue that the preliminary injunction request is moot because all preliminary relief has been voluntarily given by defendants; therefore, the court does not retain jurisdiction over the claim. Plaintiffs assert that the issue is not moot because the claim is capable of repetition, yet evading review. Because plaintiffs requested both preliminary and permanent relief, the court will determine whether both are moot. "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and can only hear actual 'cases and controversies' as defined under Article III of the Constitution." Neighborhood Transp. Network, Inc. v. Pena, 42 F.3d 1169, 1172 (8th Cir. 1994). If a case does not have an ongoing case or controversy then it becomes moot, and a federal court cannot retain jurisdiction to hear the claim. Id. "Defendants who argue mootness due to changed circumstances based on their own behavior face a heavy burden ... because, in general, 'a defendant's voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.' " Charleston Hous. Auth. v. U.S. Dep't ofAgric., 419 F.3d 729, 740 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000)). "A case might become moot if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 189 (citation omitted). The Eighth Circuit Court ofAppeals established a two-part test to determine whether the "capable-of- repetition-yet-evading-review" exception
4


applies to the mootness doctrine: " '(1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subject to the same action again.' " Hickman v. Missouri, 144 F.3d 1141, 1142-43 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 17 (1998)).
Plaintiffs can satisfy the first prong of the test because the Eighth Circuit has determinated that issues involving elections "are almost invariably of too short a duration in which to complete litigation and, of course, recur at regular intenrals." Van Bergen v. Minnesota, 59 F.3d 1541, 1547 (8th Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs also satisfy the second prong of the test because they brought forth sufficient evidence that plaintiffs and other voters in Shannon County will face this issue again in the future. There was evidence that defendants changed the number of early voting days available within Shannon County in election years 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012. There also was testimony at the March 8, 2012, hearing that funding is the only reason that early voting in Shannon County is not offered every year, and that funding will continue to be an ongOing struggle for the county. This is sufficient evidence for the court to determine that there is a reasonable expectation that plaintiffs will be subject to the same conduct in the next election cycle or that the conduct will recur. See Charleston HollS. Auth., 419 F.3d at 740 (noting that the possibility of plaintiffs being subjected to the same action, albeit slightly different, was not so remote or speculative to remove the court's jurisdiction). For these reasons, plaintiffs' requested
5


permanent injunctive and declaratory relief is not mooted by defendants' voluntary cessation.
Plaintiffs' requested preliminary relief, however, is moot because defendants have provided or promised to provide all the relief that plaintiffs sought in their request for a preliminary injunction. Docket 15 at 2. Any anticipatory violations of plaintiffs' rights have been cured. Steps have been made to offer 46 days of early voting in Shannon County. Both the Shannon County Commissioners and the Fall River County Commissioners approved 46 days of early satellite voting for the 2012 primary and general elections. Both counties have revised their contracts for services to allow early voting to proceed. Arrangements for a satellite office within Shannon County are being made. Secretary of State Jason Gant has agreed to reimburse Shannon County with $12,000 of additional HAVA funds to offset costs associated with early voting. In short, all the relief that plaintiffs requested in their motion for a preliminary hearing has been voluntarily granted by defendants. Preliminary injunctions are meant to protect those who are threatened by an imminent injury for which they have no legal remedy, which no longer applies to plaintiffs for the 2012 primary and general elections.
Alternatively, the court finds that although the court did not have to reach the underlying substantive issues on the merits, plaintiffs would not be able to prove that they are likely to sustain irreparable harm under the Dataphase factors. Following defendants' voluntary cessation and their agreement to provide early voting at satellite locations within Shannon County,
6


plaintiffs can no longer show that their harm is likely or imminent such that
preliminmy relief would be appropriate. See Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys.,
Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (noting that a preliminmy injunction is
not appropriate if there is no threat of irreparable harm to the movant).
Defendants are still working to finalize the details of early voting within
Shannon County. Though defendants and election officials have articulated
that they do not anticipate reversing any of their decisions to provide early
voting before the primary or general elections, if defendants do not fulfill their
promises, 1 then plaintiffs are to advise the court so the court can take
appropriate action.
1 Defendants made the following representations and promises for the 2012 election cycle dUring the March 8, 2012, hearing: that the Shannon County Commissioners will not reverse its decision to grant the full 46 days of early voting to occur at a satellite location within the borders of Shannon County; that the Shannon County Commissioners and the Fall River County Commissioners will not reverse the decision to amend the 2012 service contract to remove the no-notice, no-reason termination/resignation provision; that Shannon County will execute the proposed lease agreement for its satellite voting location in Pine Ridge or it will find a suitable alternate location to hold the preliminary and general election early voting within Shannon County; that Shannon County election officials Sue Ganje, Lyla Hutchison, and James Sword will do everything in their power to ensure that the full period of early voting occurs, and if they cannot fulfill their duties then offiCials from Shannon County and Fall River County will step in and run the early voting; that Shannon County will obtain permission on all preclearance issues as soon as possible; if an emergency occurs, then Secretmy of State Gant will ensure that early voting in Shannon County occurs as prOvided under South Dakota law; and Secretary of State Gant will reimburse Shannon County with $12,000 of additional HAVA funds to offset costs associated with early voting.
7

CONCLUSION Because defendants have voluntarily given plaintiffs all forms of requested preliminary relief, dismissal of plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunction is appropriate on mootness grounds. Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief and permanent injunctive relief are live claims and are capable of repetition, yet evading review. Therefore, it is ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (Docket 55) is granted. IT IS FURfHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (Docket 2) is denied as moot. IT IS FURfHER ORDERED that defendants will obtain and file amended contracts between Fall River County and Shannon County and Shannon County and State's Attorney James Sword with the court without scrivener's errors by April 9, 2012. Dated March 14, 2012.
BY THE COURf:
~yt t: cilku~
8


 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION

CHRIS BROOKS,

)

FRANCIS RENCOUNTRE,

)

GLORIA RED EAGLE,

)

SHARON CONDEN,

)

JACQUELINE GARNIER,

)

JENNIFER RED OWL,

)

EDWINA WESTON,

)

MICHELLE WESTON,

)

MONETTE TWO EAGLE,

)

MARK A. MESTETH,

)

STACY TWO LANCE,

)

HARRY BROWN,

)

ELEANOR WESTON,

)

DAWN BLACK BULL,

)

CLARICE MESTETH,

)

DONOVAN L. STEELE,

)

EILEEN JANIS,

)

LEONA LITTLE HAWK,

)

EVAN RENCOUNTRE,

)

CECIL LITTLE HAWK, SR.,

)

LINDA RED CLOUD,

)

LORETTA LITTLE HAWK,

)

FAITH TWO EAGLE,

)

EDMOND MESTETH, and

)

ELMER KILLS BACK, JR.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

JASON GANT, in his official capacity as

)

South Dakota Secretary of State,

)

SHANNON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA,

)

FALL RIVER COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, )

SHANNON COUNTY BOARD OF

)

COMMISSIONERS,

)

FALL RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF

)

COMMISSIONERS,

)

JOE FALKENBUERG, in his official

)

capacity as a member of the County Board )

of Commissioners for Fall River County, )

South Dakota,

)

ANNE CASSENS, in her official capacity as )

a member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Fall River County,

)

South Dakota,

)

MICHAEL P. ORTNER, in his official

)

capacity as a member of the County Board )

CIV. 12-5003-KES
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT GANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

of Commissioners for Fall River County, )

South Dakota,

)

DEB RUSSELL, in her official capacity as a )

member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Fall River County,

)

South Dakota,

)

JOE ALLEN, in his official capacity as a

)

member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Fall River County,

)

South Dakota,

)

BRYAN J. KEHN, in his official capacity as a )

member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Shannon

)

County, South Dakota,

)

DELORIS HAGMAN, in her official capacity )

as a member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Shannon

)

County, South Dakota,

)

EUGENIO B. WHITE HAWK, in his official )

capacity as a member of the County Board of)

Commissioners for Shannon County, South )

Dakota,

)

WENDELL YELLOW BULL, in his official )

capacity as a member of the County Board of)

Commissioners for Shannon County, South )

Dakota,

)

LYLA HUTCHISON, in her official capacity as )

a member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Shannon

)

County, South Dakota,

)

SUE GANJE, in her official capacity as the )

County Auditor for Shannon and Fall River )

Counties, and

)

JAMES SWORD, in his official

)

capacity as Attorney for Shannon and Fall )

River Counties,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Plaintiffs brought this cause of action for declaratory relief and for a

temporary and permanent injunction that would require defendants to provide

the full period of statutorily authorized early voting in Shannon County.

Docket 1. Plaintiffs claim that defendants’ failure to establish early, in-person

voting locations within the boundaries of Shannon County similar to what exist

in almost every other county and for every other voter in South Dakota violates the Voting Rights Act, the South Dakota Constitution, and the Equal Protection Clause. Defendant Jason Gant, in his official capacity as South Dakota Secretary of State, moves that he be dismissed from this cause of action because he has Eleventh Amendment immunity, plaintiffs cannot establish standing, and they have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Docket 43. Plaintiffs contest this motion and claim that there is a sufficient connection between the Secretary of State and voting to deny Gant’s motion to dismiss, that standing and sovereign immunity do not provide grounds for dismissal, and that they have succeeded in stating a claim upon which relief can be granted. Docket 47.
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are enrolled members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe who reside in Shannon County and are registered to vote. Docket 1 ¶¶ 10-34. Defendant Jason Gant is the duly elected Secretary of State for the state of South Dakota. Shannon County is entirely within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Docket 1 ¶ 1. Shannon County contracts for certain services like the conduction of elections through an adjacent county, Fall River County. Docket 1 ¶ 61. What is called early voting is absentee voting that is done in person. Docket 1 ¶ 63. Most voters in South Dakota can exercise their right to vote prior to election day at their county courthouse. Docket 1 ¶ 63. Shannon County does not have a courthouse. Its registered voters can vote early in person at the Fall River County courthouse. In the past, Shannon County has
3

offered some days of early voting at locations within Shannon County itself, but never for the full statutorily authorized time period. Docket 1 ¶ 63. In 2012, Shannon County planned to offer six days of early voting at a location within Shannon County, but any other early voting had to be done in Fall River County. Docket 1 ¶ 102. The auditor’s office in Fall River County is located in Hot Springs, which is between 53 minutes and 2 hours and 45 minutes from voters in Shannon County depending on the residence of the voter. Docket 1 ¶ 63. The voters in the other counties in South Dakota are able to vote early, in person, at a location within their county, for the entire time period set by statute. Docket 1 ¶ 63.
On January 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed this cause of action pursuant to Sections 2, 5, and 12(d) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Indian Citizenship Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 2201-2202 for declaratory relief, and Article II, Section 1 of the South Dakota Constitution. Docket 1. On February 14, 2012, Gant moved to dismiss himself as a party to this suit. Docket 43.
STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides that a court may dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). It is a rule “ ‘rooted in the unique nature of the jurisdictional question.’ ” Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 (8th Cir. 1990) (quoting Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir. 1981)). Under a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the defendant may challenge either the plaintiff’s complaint on its face or based on the factual truthfulness of the claims. Titus v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1993); Osborn v. United
4

States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 n.6 (8th Cir. 1990). The plaintiff carries the burden of showing that jurisdiction exists. V S Ltd. P’ship v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 235 F.3d 1109, 1112 (8th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). “A motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under rule 12(b)(1) which is limited to a facial attack on the pleadings is subject to the same standard as a motion brought under Rule 12(b)(6).” Mattes v. ABC Plastics, Inc., 323 F.3d 695, 698 (8th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
When reviewing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court assumes that all facts in the complaint are true and construes any reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 2008). To decide the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court may consider the complaint, some materials that are part of the public record, or materials embraced by the complaint. Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999). To survive the motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The factual content in the complaint must “allo[w] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)).
5

I. Standing1

DISCUSSION

Gant argues that plaintiffs cannot show an imminent or particularized

injury or that there is a connection between his conduct and their harm. Gant

also claims that because he does not have the authority to establish early

voting in Shannon County, plaintiffs’ injury is not traceable to his conduct.

Plaintiffs respond that their potential harm is substantial because the

fundamental right to vote should be zealously guarded and without a court

order requiring defendants to grant plaintiffs access to early voting, plaintiffs

could be denied that right based on their race. Plaintiffs also allege that Gant is

the chief elections officer in South Dakota with the statutory power to conduct

county elections in an emergency and the elected official responsible for

distributing federally given HAVA funds, thus, his position and conduct are

related to their alleged harm.

“ ‘Federal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction; they have only the

power that is authorized by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes

enacted by Congress pursuant thereto.’ ” Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., 567

1 “[I]f a plaintiff lacks standing, [a] district court has no subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, a standing argument implicates Rule 12(b)(1).” Faibisch v. Univ. of Minn., 304 F.3d 797, 801 (8th Cir. 2002). Because the arguments of standing and sovereign immunity affect the court’s jurisdiction and, therefore, its ability to hear the case, those claims will be analyzed first. N. Valley Commc’ns, LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Corp., 711 F. Supp. 2d 1018, 1024 (D.S.D. 2010) (stating that when a party moves to dismiss under 12(b)(1) and other grounds, “the court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) challenge first since if it must dismiss [a claim] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the accompanying defenses and objections become moot and do not need to be determined.”).
6

F.3d 976, 982-83 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986)). Article III requires that there be a case or controversy at every stage of the litigation, and “ ‘[f]ederal courts must always satisfy themselves that this requirement has been met before reaching the merits of a case.’ ” Id. (quoting Schanou v. Lancaster Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 160, 62 F.3d 1040, 1042 (8th Cir. 1995)).
“Standing requires (1) an injury that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical, (2) that the injury be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and (3) that it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Turkish Coal. of Am., Inc. v. Bruininks, 678 F.3d 617, 621 (8th Cir. 2012) (quotations and citation omitted). It is insufficient to show an injury in fact by mere “[a]llegations of possible future injury.” Mo. Roundtable for Life v. Carnahan, 676 F.3d 665, 672 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 158 (1990)).
Plaintiffs are Native American voters2 living within Shannon County who allege that they themselves have been denied their fundamental right to vote. Specifically, plaintiffs have stated that they suffered an injury in fact because they are denied the fundamental right to vote early within their county, which has an overwhelming population of Native Americans, when almost all other
2 The Supreme Court has held that when a governmental actor is discriminating based on race, that resulting injury “accords a basis for standing only to those persons who are personally denied equal treatment by the challenged discriminatory conduct.” United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 743-44 (1995) (quotations and citations omitted).
7

white voters in South Dakota’s counties are afforded early voting rights within their own counties. At this stage in the litigation, plaintiffs’ alleged injury is sufficiently particularized and concrete and is not speculative or imaginary; thus, the first factor of standing is satisfied. See Constitution Party of S.D. v. Nelson, 639 F.3d 417, 421 (8th Cir. 2011) (“Therefore ‘general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct’ will suffice to establish Article III standing at the pleading stage, ‘for on a motion to dismiss we presume that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support [a contested] claim.’ ”).
Plaintiffs’ alleged injury, their lack of early voting, is fairly traceable to Gant at this stage of the litigation. Gant is the chief election officer in the state of South Dakota. If for some reason an emergency occurs in Shannon County and the person in charge of conducting the election cannot or will not do so, Gant may run the election. SDCL 12-18-41. In December of 2009, Fall River County and Shannon County State’s Attorney, Jim Sword, threatened that he and Sue Ganje, the county auditor for Fall River and Shannon Counties, would resign and then the “DOJ, the State of South Dakota and the tribe can argue about who is going to run the 2010 elections.” Docket 1 ¶¶ 82-83. Considering the fact that Shannon County contracts with Fall River County for its election assistance and Fall River County has threatened to terminate such services in the recent past, Gant may be responsible pursuant to state law to coordinate an election in Shannon County.3 This provides a nexus between the alleged
3 Although the parties were fighting about multiple issues when this letter was drafted and sent, it shows that Gant may have to step in and provide early voting in Shannon County.
8

harm and Gant. See Mo. Prot. & Advocacy Servs., Inc. v. Carnahan, 499 F.3d 803, 807 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting that although authority to administer elections is typically delegated to local authorities, “the Secretary of State is ‘the chief state election official’ responsible for overseeing of the voter registration process” and he or she administers the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993).
Moreover, Gant is the officer in charge of disseminating Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) funds in South Dakota, and he has authority to implement South Dakota’s plan to improve the administration of federal elections under HAVA. See Help America Vote Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-252, 42 U.S.C. § 15301 et seq. The Election Assistance Commission distributes HAVA funds to the states, but there is no federal mandate as to how the local units of government, like counties, actually have to receive the funds from the state. Docket 47 at 11. At the time this lawsuit was brought it was the practice and preference4 of the state of South Dakota to have counties pay election costs up front and then submit the costs to the state as a reimbursement request.5 When additional HAVA funds are made available to the state, the Secretary of
4 At the time of the complaint, Gant had not agreed to provide additional funding to Shannon County from HAVA funds, but instead had only indicated a willingness to consider reimbursement requests after voting concluded. Docket 1 ¶ 103.
5 The plan notes that counties must expend all of the monies held in their county-held accounts before they can request state-held funds. “Counties are reimbursed semi-annually from the state election fund.” Docket 48-14 at 4. Further, “[r]eimbursement requests will be submitted to the Secretary of State’s office via the HAVA Title II Reimbursement Form.” Docket 48-14 at 9.
9

State has discretion to determine how the funds are distributed to counties.6 This discretion on how to provide federal funds to counties like Shannon County and Gant’s power to implement the state’s HAVA plan is sufficient to show an additional avenue through which plaintiffs’ injury in fact is traceable to Gant’s conduct.
Finally, plaintiffs’ injury is able to be redressed because plaintiffs are seeking a court order to direct that defendants provide early voting, and all defendants, including Gant, would have to comply with that order and offer early voting in Shannon County. The court also could order that defendant Gant, in particular, alter the state’s HAVA reimbursement plan if the court were to determine that the current reimbursement plan was violative of the Voting Rights Act or other federal law. Under the facts alleged in the complaint, there is a cognizable connection between Gant’s conduct, the harm to plaintiffs, and the court’s ability to redress the harm. II. Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity7
Gant argues that plaintiffs’ claims against him cannot proceed because he is shielded by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiffs assert that because their requested remedy is against Gant for prospective injunctive relief, this action may proceed under Ex parte Young,
6 The state HAVA plan provides that “[i]f further Title II Section 251 funds are made available to the State, the Secretary of State will determine an appropriate method for funds distribution.” Docket 48-14 at 5.
7 A motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity is a challenge to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction; therefore, this claim is also guided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
10

because a state actor is not protected by sovereign immunity if he is engaging in an ongoing violation of an individual’s federally protected right.
The Eleventh Amendment, or the doctrine of sovereign immunity, deprives federal courts of the power to hear claims brought by parties against states, their agencies, or their officers, unless the state has waived its immunity or Congress has abrogated the state’s immunity. U.S. Const. amend. XI; Quinnett v. Iowa, 644 F.3d 630, 632 (8th Cir. 2011). But when prospective relief is sought against individual state officers in their official capacity in federal court based on a deprivation of a federal right, the Eleventh Amendment typically does not bar that action. Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 276-77 (1997); see also S.D. Farm Bureau, Inc. v. South Dakota, 197 F.R.D. 673, 679 (D.S.D. 2000) (“Sovereign immunity does not bar certain actions against state officers for injunctive or declaratory relief to prevent future violations of federal law by state officials.”). This exception initially addressed in Ex parte Young provides that “if a state official violates federal law, he is stripped of his official or representative character and may be personally liable for his conduct; the State cannot cloak the officer in its sovereign immunity.” Coeur d’Alene, 521 U.S. at 288 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (citing Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60 (1908)).
When applying the Ex parte Young doctrine, a court “need only conduct a ‘straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.’ ” Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 645 (2002) (quoting Coeur d’Alene, 521 U.S. at 296). “[T]he proper focus [of our immunity
11

inquiry] must be directed at whether the injunctive relief sought is prospective or retroactive in nature, and not on an injunction’s impact on the State’s treasury.” Mo. Child Care Ass’n v. Cross, 294 F.3d 1034, 1042 (8th Cir. 2002) (quotations and citations omitted).
In this case, plaintiffs’ requested relief is against defendant Gant in the future and is not a request for money damages. Plaintiffs have alleged that the lack of in-county early voting for Native Americans living in Shannon County is an issue that has not been resolved previously and remains uncertain going forward. Plaintiffs’ request, therefore, is not to fix a past wrong, but is a request that all defendants, including Gant, provide in-county, in-person, early voting for every election cycle in the future and for the full statutorily set time period. As analyzed in the standing discussion, Gant’s authority to conduct elections in an emergency, his role as the chief elections official in the state, and his control of federal HAVA funds that are distributed by him to counties like Shannon County provides his connection to this claim.
If the court finds that Gant’s HAVA plan violates federal law, it could order Gant to change his policies to avoid violating federal law in the future. This is the type of relief that is prospective in nature because it is a request for a state official8 to stop violating federal law, which is precisely the type of case where the Ex parte Young doctrine applies. See Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v.
8 Gant also argues that the claim against him is really against the state of South Dakota. But the Supreme Court has held that “a state official in his or her official capacity, when sued for injunctive relief, would be a person under § 1983 because ‘official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the state.’ ” Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 n.10 (1989).
12

Stewart, 131 S. Ct. 1632, 1639 (2011) (“ ‘In determining whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit, a court need only conduct a straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.’ ”). For this reason, Gant is not cloaked with sovereign immunity, and he is a proper defendant in this case. III. Failure to State a Claim
Plaintiffs claim that Gant violated the Voting Rights Act because they were denied the right to vote based on their race due to a standard, practice, or procedure imposed by Gant. Plaintiffs also argue that Gant acted under color of state law to deprive the voters of Shannon County equal protection of the laws by failing to establish early voting in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Finally, plaintiffs allege that Gant acted under the color of state law to deprive them of their voting rights and equal elections in violation of the South Dakota Constitution. Gant asserts that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on all three of their claims.
A. Voting Rights Act Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits states from applying or imposing any “standard, practice, or procedure . . . which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a). Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is violated if, based on the totality of the circumstances, minority plaintiffs can show that they “have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to
13

participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b); see also Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 397 (1991).
The thrust of Gant’s argument that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim is that because early voting is the responsibility of Shannon County, he could not have violated federal or state law because he does not have the capacity to establish early voting in Shannon County. In South Dakota, the precincts and polling places are designated by county commissioners. SDCL 12-14-1. Each county’s auditor is the party responsible for providing ballots for each election in the county. SDCL 12-16-1. While it is true that Shannon County is the entity that has to provide early voting to plaintiffs, the Secretary of State may conduct an election in any county if the person in charge of elections in that county signs a declaration of emergency.9
Gant argues that he must be dismissed because any alleged wrongdoing in Shannon County would be the fault or responsibility of the county auditor or the local election officials. Secretary of State Gant, however, is a proper party in the lawsuit at this stage of the litigation because he is the chief elections official
9 SDCL 12-18-41 provides:
Procedure for secretary of state to conduct election in emergency– Reimbursement of expenses. If the person charged with the conduct of an election and the governing board determine that an election cannot be conducted, the person charged with the conduct of an election shall sign a declaration of emergency and deliver it to the secretary of state prior to the election. The secretary of state may conduct the election for that county or political subdivision until the election has been certified. Any reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by the secretary of state to conduct the election shall be reimbursed by the county or political subdivision within ninety days after the election has been certified.
14

in the state and because he has the authority to conduct an election in South Dakota when there is a “declaration of emergency” signed and delivered to him by the person tasked with conducting the local election. Such a connection is direct enough to survive on a motion to dismiss and to state a claim against Gant in general.10 Additionally, the Supreme Court emphasized in Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991) that “the [Voting Rights Act of 1965] should be interpreted in a manner that provides the ‘broadest possible scope’ in combating racial discrimination.” Id. at 403 (quoting Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 567 (1969)).
In the amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged that each of them are enrolled members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, registered voters, and residents of Shannon County. Docket 1 ¶¶ 10-34. South Dakota law states that absentee voting “shall begin no earlier and no later than forty-six days prior to the election.” SDCL 12-16-1. Plaintiffs provided evidence that voters in other counties in South Dakota could go to their county courthouse and obtain and cast an absentee ballot in one trip for the full statutorily set window leading up to an election. Docket 1 ¶ 63. Plaintiffs have also established that the same is not true for them as voters in Shannon County.
10 See Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Ritchie, Civ. No. 08-5285, 2011 WL 665858, at *3 (D. Minn. Feb. 14, 2011) (noting that the Secretary of State was the proper party to the lawsuit because he was the “chief election official in the state” and had a duty to implement any injunctions regarding state election laws); Carnahan, 499 F.3d at 807 (holding that although the election was administered by local authorities, “the Secretary of State is ‘the chief state election official responsible for overseeing of the voter registration process,’ ” so Eleventh Amendment immunity did not preclude the voting rights lawsuit against the Secretary of State).
15

At the start of this cause of action, Shannon County agreed to provide six days of early voting for the 2012 primary and general elections. Docket 1 ¶ 102. This means that residents of Shannon County, a county that is almost entirely comprised of Native Americans, either could vote early within Shannon County for six days or they had to travel between almost an hour and up to almost three hours (depending on the location of their residence) to Fall River County to exercise their right to vote. This was substantially different from the voting opportunities afforded to the residents of other counties in South Dakota and to the majority of white voters. Plaintiffs also alleged in the complaint the cost and time it would take for residents of Shannon County to exercise their right to vote in Fall River County. Docket 1 ¶ 63. Additionally, plaintiffs alleged that voting by mail is not a viable option for many tribal members because past discrimination and hostilities cause them to distrust that their vote will be counted when sent by mail. Docket 1 ¶ 64. Finally, plaintiffs alleged that early voting within Shannon County was not always offered in the past, but when it was, the early voting locations contributed to the voter turnout nearly doubling. Docket 1 ¶ 69.
Through these facts plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that based on their race they “have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b); see also Chisom, 501 U.S. at 397. With the broad scope of the Voting Rights Act viewed in tandem with the facts alleged in the complaint and Gant’s ability to run elections in emergencies as well as his control over HAVA funds, it is reasonable for the court to infer that Gant is a proper party
16

to be sued for the early voting shortcomings in Shannon County. See Janis v. Nelson, Civ. No. 09-5019, 2009 WL 5216902, at *7 (D.S.D. Dec. 30, 2009) (“In light of the broad scope of the Voting Rights Act and the facts set forth in the amended complaint and discussed above, it is reasonable to infer that state defendants may be liable for the alleged violations of Section 2 . . . of the Voting Rights Act because they are authorized to promulgate rules pertaining to numerous voting matters, including the uniformity of election procedures, voter file maintenance, and implementation of the NVRA.”).
B. Equal Protection Plaintiffs claim that Gant violated the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when he acted under the color of state law to deprive voters of Shannon County equal protection of the laws by failing to establish early voting in Shannon County. Docket 1 ¶ 108. Section 1983 provides that: Every person, who under the color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the Jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws shall liable to the party injured.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thus, plaintiffs must show a set of facts whereby they have been deprived of a federal statutory right or a constitutional right under color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 4 (1980).
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. This is a directive that all persons who are similarly situated should
17

be treated alike. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982). The Supreme Court has “treated as presumptively invidious those classifications that disadvantage a ‘suspect class,’ or that impinge upon the exercise of a ‘fundamental right.’ ” Id. at 216-17. To show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, the plaintiff must bring forth “[p]roof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose[.]” Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing, 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977). “[A]n invidious discriminatory purpose may often be inferred from the totality of the relevant facts, including the fact, if it is true, that the law bears more heavily on one race than another.” Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242 (1976).
Plaintiffs claim that Gant “either explicitly caused, encouraged, participated, or knowingly acquiesced in the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights; at a minimum, he and others failed, and continue to fail to adopt an appropriate state plan for HAVA funds to address the needs of the poorer counties in the State of South Dakota.” Docket 47 at 16. Plaintiffs have also alleged that white voters in most of the other South Dakota counties have access to in-person, early voting for the full statutory period while Native American residents of Shannon County do not have the same access during that time. This claim involves the fundamental right to vote and plaintiffs, as Native Americans, could be considered a suspect class. These factual allegations are enough to infer on a motion to dismiss from the totality of the facts that the law bears more heavily on one race than another. For that reason, Gant’s motion to dismiss on the Equal Protection Clause claim is denied.
18

C. South Dakota Constitution Plaintiffs have argued that “[t]he defendants have acted under color of state law to deprive the voters of Shannon County equal elections by arbitrarily failing to establish early voting polling places within Shannon County for a full six (6) week period as enjoyed by almost every other registered voter in the State of South Dakota in violation of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.” Docket 1 ¶ 111. Article VII, Section 1 of the South Dakota Constitution, provides that “[e]lections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” S.D. Const. art. VII, § 1. This claim tracks plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Clause claim previously discussed and, because it provides a separate and independent right under South Dakota state law, it too must survive Gant’s motion to dismiss. For these reasons, plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief can be granted on their Voting Rights Act claim, their Equal Protection Clause claim, and their South Dakota Constitutional claim against Gant in his official capacity; therefore, his motion to dismiss is denied.
CONCLUSION Because the Ex parte Young exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity applies in this case, Secretary of State Gant is not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiffs have established that they have standing against Gant because infringement upon their voting rights is a concrete injury that is linked to Gant’s conduct and their harm could potentially be remedied or redressed by a favorable court ruling. And plaintiffs
19

have succeeded in stating a claim under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6) in regards to their Voting Rights Act claim, their Equal Protection Clause claim, and their claim under the South Dakota Constitution. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that defendant Gant’s motion to dismiss (Docket 43) is denied.
Dated September 27, 2012. BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER CHIEF JUDGE
20

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION

CHRIS BROOKS,

)

CIV. 12-5003-KES

FRANCIS RENCOUNTRE,

)

GLORIA RED EAGLE,

)

SHARON CONDEN,

)

JACQUELINE GARNIER,

)

JENNIFER RED OWL,

)

EDWINA WESTON,

)

MICHELLE WESTON,

)

MONETTE TWO EAGLE,

) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MARK A. MESTETH,

)

MOTION TO DISMISS AND

STACY TWO LANCE,

) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

HARRY BROWN,

)

TO EXTEND

ELEANOR WESTON,

)

DAWN BLACK BULL,

)

CLARICE MESTETH,

)

DONOVAN L. STEELE,

)

EILEEN JANIS,

)

LEONA LITTLE HAWK,

)

EVAN RENCOUNTRE,

)

CECIL LITTLE HAWK, SR.,

)

LINDA RED CLOUD,

)

LORETTA LITTLE HAWK,

)

FAITH TWO EAGLE,

)

EDMOND MESTETH, and

)

ELMER KILLS BACK, JR.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

JASON GANT, in his official capacity as

)

South Dakota Secretary of State,

)

SHANNON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA,

)

FALL RIVER COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, )

SHANNON COUNTY BOARD OF

)

COMMISSIONERS,

)

FALL RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF

)

COMMISSIONERS,

)

JOE FALKENBUERG, in his official

)

capacity as a member of the County Board )

of Commissioners for Fall River County, )

South Dakota,

)

ANNE CASSENS, in her official capacity as )

a member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Fall River County,

)

South Dakota,

)

MICHAEL P. ORTNER, in his official

)

capacity as a member of the County Board )

of Commissioners for Fall River County, )

South Dakota,

)

DEB RUSSELL, in her official capacity as a )

member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Fall River County,

)

South Dakota,

)

JOE ALLEN, in his official capacity as a

)

member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Fall River County,

)

South Dakota,

)

BRYAN J. KEHN, in his official capacity as a )

member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Shannon

)

County, South Dakota,

)

DELORIS HAGMAN, in her official capacity )

as a member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Shannon

)

County, South Dakota,

)

EUGENIO B. WHITE HAWK, in his official )

capacity as a member of the County Board of)

Commissioners for Shannon County, South )

Dakota,

)

WENDELL YELLOW BULL, in his official )

capacity as a member of the County Board of)

Commissioners for Shannon County, South )

Dakota,

)

LYLA HUTCHISON, in her official capacity as )

a member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Shannon

)

County, South Dakota,

)

SUE GANJE, in her official capacity as the )

County Auditor for Shannon and Fall River )

Counties, and

)

JAMES SWORD, in his official

)

capacity as Attorney for Shannon and Fall )

River Counties,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Plaintiffs brought this cause of action seeking declaratory relief and for a

temporary and permanent injunction that would require defendants to provide

the full period of statutorily authorized early voting within Shannon County.

Docket 1. All defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent

injunction as moot because they claim that plaintiffs’ alleged harm has been

remedied by defendants’ voluntary conduct and that no case or controversy remains. Docket 77. Plaintiffs contest that motion and assert that because defendants’ agreement to provide early voting expires in 2019, and there is no guaranteed funding for early voting beyond 2018, their alleged harm is likely to recur and their request for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief is a live claim. Docket 81. Defendants also move to extend the discovery and other motions deadline. Docket 73. Plaintiffs resist this motion and claim defendants cannot show good cause. Docket 76. For the following reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied, and defendants’ motion to extend the scheduling order is granted.
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are enrolled members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe who reside in Shannon County and are registered to vote. Docket 1 ¶¶ 10-34. Defendants are the entities or people responsible for conducting voting in Shannon County and Fall River County or who are related to voting in South Dakota. Shannon County is entirely within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Docket 1 ¶ 1. Shannon County contracts for certain services, including conducting elections, through an adjacent county, Fall River County. Docket 1 ¶ 61. What is called early voting is absentee voting that is done in person. Docket 1 ¶ 63. Most voters in South Dakota can exercise their right to vote prior to election day in the weeks leading up to election day at their county courthouse. Docket 1 ¶ 63. Shannon County does not have a courthouse. Its registered voters can vote early in person at the Fall River County courthouse.
3

In the past, Shannon County has offered some days of early voting at locations within Shannon County itself, but never for the full statutory time period. Docket 1 ¶ 63. In 2012, Shannon County planned to offer six days of early voting at a location within Shannon County, but any other early voting had to be done in Fall River County. Docket 1 ¶ 102. The auditor’s office in Fall River County is located in Hot Springs, which is between 53 minutes and 2 hours and 45 minutes from voters in Shannon County depending on the residence of the voter. Docket 1 ¶ 63. The voters in the other counties in South Dakota are able to vote early, in person, at a location within their county, for the entire time period set by statute. Docket 1 ¶ 63.
On March 2, 2012, Shannon County determined that it would provide the full statutorily set window of early voting for each 2012 election. This decision was made in part due to the Secretary of State’s commitment to provide an additional $12,000 through Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funds to reimburse Shannon County for the 8-hour-per-day wages for early voting election workers. Docket 56 at 3. On March 6, 2012, defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary relief on the grounds that it was moot because of defendants’ voluntary conduct and because the requested relief had been granted. Docket 55.
On March 8, 2012, the court heard evidence and oral argument on the pending motions. Docket 64. Following that hearing, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ request for preliminary relief and denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. Docket 66; Brooks v. Gant, Civ. No. 12-5003, 2012 WL 871262 (D.S.D. Mar. 14, 2012).
4

Plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction and request for declaratory relief continued, and the parties began discovery.
In the interim, defendants voluntarily agreed to provide early voting beyond the 2012 voting cycle within Shannon County. On August 3, 2012, Shannon County and Secretary of State Jason Gant entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (the agreement) whereby Gant agreed to release additional HAVA funds to Shannon County to allow the county to provide staff for early voting through January of 2019. Docket 79-1. On that same day, Shannon County passed two resolutions. The first, Resolution 2012-10, resolved for Shannon County to enter into the agreement. Docket 79-2. The second, Resolution 2012-11, acknowledged that Shannon County agreed to provide in-person, absentee voting at a satellite office in Shannon County for the full 46 days of early voting. The county also agreed to provide notice of such voting rights to the public through 2018. Docket 79-3. The agreement commenced on August 3, 2012, and it continues through January 1, 2019.1
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ request for permanent injunctive and declaratory relief on August 10, 2012. Docket 77. Defendants also moved to extend the deadline to disclose their expert and other motions because the
1 The agreement provides that it: is intended to assist Shannon County in funding federal elections, including absentee voting, in accordance with state and federal law and in compliance with and authorized by the State HAVA plan in effect and as amended from time to time and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 . . . as directed by the Secretary of State. Docket 79-1 at 3.
5

amount of discovery and complexity of the case required additional time. Docket 73. Plaintiffs resist that motion and state that defendants have failed to show good cause and they will sustain prejudice if an extension is granted. Docket 76.
STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)2 provides that a court may dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). It is a rule “ ‘rooted in the unique nature of the jurisdictional question.’ ” Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 (8th Cir. 1990) (quoting Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir. 1981)). Under a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the defendant may challenge either the plaintiff’s complaint on its face or based on the factual truthfulness of the claims. Titus v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1993); Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 n.6 (8th Cir. 1990). The plaintiff carries the burden of showing that jurisdiction exists. V S Ltd. P’ship v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 235 F.3d 1109, 1112 (8th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). “A motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under rule 12(b)(1) which is limited to a facial attack on the pleadings is subject to the same standard as a motion brought
2 A motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Regardless of whether defendants’ motion to dismiss falls under Rule 12(b) or Rule 12(c), the standard of review is the same. See Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990) (stating that the “distinction [between Rule 12(c) and 12(b)(6)] is purely formal, because we review this 12(c) motion under the standard that governs 12(b)(6) motions”) (citations omitted).
6

under Rule 12(b)(6).” Mattes v. ABC Plastics, Inc., 323 F.3d 695, 698 (8th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
When reviewing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court assumes that all facts in the complaint are true and construes any reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 2008). To decide the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court may consider the complaint, some materials that are part of the public record, or materials embraced by the complaint. Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999). To survive the motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The factual content in the complaint must “allo[w] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)).
DISCUSSION I. Motion to Dismiss Based on Mootness
All defendants move to dismiss the complaint and plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction because they claim that plaintiffs’ claims have been rendered moot by defendants’ voluntary conduct in establishing early voting in Shannon County. Plaintiffs respond that although plans have been made to ensure that early voting occurs in Shannon County through the 2018 election cycle, there is no guarantee that early voting will be offered after that election
7

year because the federal funds will have been wholly spent. Thus, defendants cannot establish that their voluntary conduct mooted the claim because they cannot show that it is absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.
“When a case . . . no longer presents an actual, ongoing case or controversy, the case is moot and the federal court no longer has jurisdiction to hear it.” Hickman v. Missouri, 144 F.3d 1141, 1142 (8th Cir. 1998) (quotation and citation omitted); see also Comfort Lake Ass’n, Inc. v. Dresel Contracting, Inc., 138 F.3d 351, 354 (8th Cir. 1998) (“The doctrine that federal courts may not decide moot cases ‘derives from the requirement of Article III of the Constitution under which the exercise of judicial power depends upon the existence of a case or controversy.’ ”). Such a requirement exists at all stages of the litigation and “ ‘applies with equal force to actions for declaratory judgment as it does to actions seeking traditional coercive relief.’ ” Hickman, 144 F.3d at 1142 (quoting Marine Equip. Mgmt. Co. v. United States, 4 F.3d 643, 646 (8th Cir. 1993)).
“The test for mootness is stringent. Mere voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not moot a case; otherwise, the courts would be compelled to leave [t]he defendant . . . free to return to his old ways.” Ctr. for Special Needs Trust Admin., Inc. v. Olson, 676 F.3d 688, 697 (8th Cir. 2012) (quotations and citations omitted). The test3 for whether a defendant’s voluntary action
3 Defendants argue that the proper test for mootness in this case is the “capable of repetition, yet evading review test,” which applies if “(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the
8

moots the case or controversy requirement is that the defendant must prove it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Comfort Lake, 138 F.3d at 355 (citing United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass’n, 393 U.S. 199, 203 (1968)). “A mere ‘physical or theoretical possibility’ is insufficient” to show that something could not reasonably be expected to recur, and “a ‘demonstrated probability’ must be shown.” McFarlin, 980 F.2d at 1211 (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982)).
Shannon County has agreed to provide the full 46 days of early voting within the county for the next four election cycles through 2018. The Secretary of State has agreed to reimburse the county for the majority of those costs. What is unclear, however, is what will happen when the money runs out. Defendants have admitted that the expected costs to provide early voting through 2019 will drain the HAVA fund for Shannon County after the 2018 election cycle. At that point, it is likely that plaintiffs will again be faced with the same hurdles to early voting that existed at the start of this litigation because Shannon County lacks the funding to permanently support early voting. See Strutton v. Meade, 668 F.3d 549, 556 (8th Cir. 2012) (concluding that defendants could not show that the conditions were “not reasonably expected to recur” in light of “future budgetary and staffing restrictions.”).
same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.” McFarlin v. Newport Special Sch. Dist., 980 F.2d 1208, 1211 (8th Cir. 1992) (quotations and citations omitted). Because the conduct is voluntary, however, defendants have the burden of showing that it is clear that the improper behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur. See Comfort Lake, 138 F.3d at 355.
9

Additionally, in approximately seven years when the money shortage will recur, it is probable that there will be a new tribal government of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, a new Secretary of State, a new Shannon County Board of Commissioners, and a new Fall River County Board of Commissioners. There is no guarantee that the agreements reached in this case will be remade. See Janis v. Nelson, Civ. No. 09-5019, 2009 WL 4505935, at *6 (D.S.D. Nov. 24, 2009) (stating that although the auditor promised to keep plaintiffs’ names on the voting list, she “could be removed from office in the future either by retirement or by being defeated during an election and her promise to not remove plaintiffs from the voting list would not be enforceable as to her successor.”).
Moreover, even in the election years prior to 2019, there is still a possibility that early voting may not occur. The agreement between Shannon County and Gant is conditioned upon the continued availability of HAVA funding through the federal government and upon the government’s delineation of the type of expenses for which HAVA funds may be used or how local governments may be reimbursed.4 The conditional or terminative nature of the
4 The termination provision provides that:
This Agreement depends upon continued availability of HAVA funding for the purposes contemplated herein. This Agreement will be terminated if the Federal Government, through the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) or through appropriations or legislation under HAVA or otherwise, fails to appropriate sufficient funding or grant expenditure authority for the use of these funds as outlined in this agreement. It is also terminated should HAVA funds become unavailable for the purposes described herein for any reason. This Agreement also depends upon the continued
10

agreement coupled with the fact that all parties acknowledge that funding for early voting will likely run out in 2019, establishes that defendants cannot carry their burden and show that it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass’n, 393 U.S. at 203.
Defendants cite numerous Eighth Circuit cases to support their argument that plaintiffs’ issue has become moot as in a student who has graduated from high school or a plaintiff who has moved the court to create a team when the school had already voluntarily done so. Docket 90 at 15 (citing McFarlin, 980 F.2d at 1210; Grandson v. Univ. of Minn., 272 F.3d 568, 574 (8th Cir. 2001)). The cases are distinguishable because unlike the harms alleged in those cases, the alleged harm of lack of early voting would still affect these plaintiffs directly in the future. This is not a case where plaintiffs would lack standing, lack an ongoing harm, or where a court can no longer grant effective relief like the cases cited above. While defendants have voluntarily given the requested relief for the next few voting cycles, there is no accounting for what will happen after 2018. For that reason, the harm is likely to recur once the HAVA money runs out.
Defendants also argue that plaintiffs cannot establish that they have a continued interest in the litigation because none of the plaintiffs utilized the
availability of appropriated funds and expenditure authority from Shannon County for these purposes. Docket 79-1 at 2.
11

early voting locations within Shannon County in the June primary election.5
Defendants cite two cases to support their argument that plaintiffs’ harm is not
real and immediate because defendants provided the relief requested and
plaintiffs failed to participate in early voting; therefore, they have forfeited their
personal stake in the litigation. The cases cited, however, do not pertain to voting and are not applicable to these facts.6 Plaintiffs requested early voting to
have the option to vote early like the majority of other voters in South Dakota
counties. One of the main benefits of early absentee voting is to vote whenever
it is convenient for each voter. Plaintiffs are not required to vote early or face
the threat of losing that right; rather, each voter is given the opportunity to
make his/her voting decision based on what is best for him/her as an
individual.
For these reasons, defendants have failed to carry their burden of
persuading the court that their voluntary conduct has rendered the alleged
5 Defendants claim that only three plaintiffs even voted, and none of the plaintiffs voted early and in person. Docket 90 at 18.
6 In Fischbach v. New Mexico Activities Association, 38 F.3d 1159, 1160 (10th Cir. 1994), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that case law in that circuit suggested that a case is moot if the litigant “graduates from school or no longer has an interest in participating in interscholastic athletic activity[.]” Although plaintiffs did not exercise their right to vote early in this election, they have indicated that they still have an active interest in participating in early voting in the future. It is their choice on when and if they decide to exercise their right to vote early. Their claim is not waived merely because they choose to vote on election day or do not vote early. Additionally, in Chase v. Baskersville, 508 F. Supp. 2d 492, 508 (E.D. Va. 2007), the court found that the claim was moot because the litigant in that case never indicated that he wanted to reenroll in a program to which he was denied access. That is not applicable to this case where plaintiffs have expressed a continued desire to have the option to vote early like the majority of other voters in South Dakota.
12

harm reasonably unlikely to recur, and the court cannot conclude that the challenged practice in this case has been rendered moot. See Strutton, 668 F.3d at 556 (“Mere voluntary cessation of a challenged action does not moot a case. Rather, a case becomes moot ‘if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.’ The burden of showing that the challenged conduct is unlikely to recur rests on the party asserting mootness.”) (citation omitted). At this stage of the litigation, the court has a live case or controversy over both the request for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief, and the court retains subject matter jurisdiction over the case. II. Motion to Extend the Scheduling Order
Defendants move to amend the court’s current scheduling order and request that the deadlines be extended for discovery, including expert discovery and other motions, because discovery has been substantial, defendants’ attorney was out of the office for a considerable amount of time, and defendants need more time to find and prepare an expert. Docket 73. Plaintiffs resist this motion and claim that defendants cannot show good cause for an extension and the motion should be denied. Docket 76.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 requires that the district court enter a scheduling order that sets the deadlines for the various stages of litigation. Under Rule 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “ ‘The primary measure of good cause is the movant’s diligence in attempting to meet the [scheduling] order’s requirements.’ ” Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 716-17
13

(8th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). The amount of “ ‘prejudice to the party opposing the modification’ and other factors may also affect the decision.” Bradford v. DANA Corp., 249 F.3d 807, 809 (8th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Rule 16 is to be interpreted in a way that achieves “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
Defendants claim that the good cause in this case is that substantial discovery has occurred in a short window of time. Defendants note that multiple sets of requests for admission, multiple sets of interrogatories, requests for production of documents, as well as four depositions have delayed the proceedings. Docket 74 at 2-3. Defendants state that counsel for defendants was out of the office for a number of weeks due to a child’s illness and participation in a pageant.
Although the requested extension would delay the litigation to some degree, the court finds that under the circumstances of this case, good cause has been shown. The discovery has been substantial and conducted within a small window of time. This case involves issues of fundamental rights, and expert opinions are an important addition to the discussion. Moreover, a trial date has yet to be set, and plaintiffs have not sufficiently argued any prejudice or harm that they would incur from an extension other than distrust in the system in general. For all these reasons, the court will grant an extension to the discovery deadlines.
14

CONCLUSION Even though defendants voluntarily agreed to provide early voting in Shannon County through 2018, plaintiffs’ claims are not moot because defendants cannot establish that it is unlikely that the wrongful conduct will not recur in the future. The court also finds that defendants have established good cause to extend the scheduling order. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket 77) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to extend deadlines (Docket 73) is granted. All discovery, including expert discovery, will be commenced in time to be completed by November 30, 2012. The identity of and reports from retained experts under Rule 26(a)(2) will be due from defendants by October 31, 2012. All motions, other than motions in limine, together with supporting briefs, will be filed and served on or before December 31, 2012. Dated October 4, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER CHIEF JUDGE
15

 
 2013 WL 4017036 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, D. South Dakota,
Western Division.
Chris BROOKS, Francis Rencountre, Gloria Red Eagle, Sharon Conden, Jacqueline Garnier, Jennifer Red Owl, Edwina Weston, Michelle
Weston, Monette Two Eagle, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Harry Brown, Eleanor Weston,
Dawn Black Bull, Clarice Mesteth, Donovan L. Steele, Eileen Janis, Leona Little Hawk, Evan Rencountre, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr., Linda Red Cloud, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Edmond Mesteth, and Elmer Kills Back, Jr.,
Plaintiffs, v.
Jason GANT, in his official capacity as South Dakota Secretary of State, Shannon County, South
Dakota, Fall River County, South Dakota, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Fall
River County Board of Commissioners, Joe Falkenbuerg, in his official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Fall River County, South Dakota, Anne Cassens, in her official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Fall River County, South Dakota, Michael P. Ortner, in his official capacity
as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Fall River County, South Dakota, Deb Russell, in her official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Fall River County, South Dakota, Joe Allen, in his official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Fall River County, South Dakota, Bryan J. Kehn, in his official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Shannon County, South Dakota, Deloris Hagman, in her official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Shannon County, South Dakota, Eugenio B. White Hawk, in his official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Shannon County, South Dakota, Wendell Yellow Bull, in his official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Shannon County, South Dakota, Lyla Hutchison, in her official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Shannon County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, in her official capacity as the County Auditor for Shannon and Fall River Counties, and James Sword, in his official capacity as Attorney for Shannon and Fall River Counties,
1

Defendants.
No. CIV. 12–5003–KES. |
Aug. 6, 2013.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Steven Daniel Sandven, Steven D. Sandven Law Offices, Sioux Falls, SD, for Plaintiffs.
Richard M. Williams, Attorney General of South Dakota, Pierre, SD, Sara Frankenstein, Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson & Ashmore, LLP, Rapid City, SD, Rebecca L. Mann, Rapid City, SD, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
KAREN E. SCHREIER, District Judge.
*1 Plaintiffs brought this cause of action seeking declaratory relief and for a temporary and permanent injunction that would require defendants to provide the full period of statutorily authorized early voting within Shannon County. Docket 1. All defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint based on ripeness grounds because plaintiffs’ alleged harm is not certain or imminent, and thus, defendants argue the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the cause of action. Docket 118. Plaintiffs contest the motion and assert that the action is ripe because their harm is certain to occur again. Docket 129. The parties also cross move for summary judgment, move to strike expert reports, and move in limine to prevent these experts from testifying at trial. For all the reasons discussed below, the motion to dismiss is granted. All other motions are denied as moot.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are enrolled members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe who reside in Shannon County and are registered to vote. Defendants are the entities or people responsible for conducting voting in Shannon County and Fall River County or who have a role related to voting in South

Dakota. Shannon County is entirely within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Due to the makeup of the population of Shannon County, it lacks the funds to provide certain services, features, and benefits that are typically provided to residents by the county in which they live. Thus, Shannon County must contract with an adjacent county to provide these services to its residents. Historically, Shannon County has contracted with Fall River County to provide election services.
SDCL 12–16–1 was amended in 2011 by the South Dakota Legislature to provide as follows: “Absentee voting shall begin no earlier and no later than forty-six days prior to the election.” What is called early voting for the purpose of this lawsuit is more accurately described as absentee voting that is done in person. Most voters in South Dakota can exercise their right to vote prior to election day in the 46 days prior to election day at their county courthouse. Because Shannon County does not have a courthouse within the county, its registered voters must vote early in person at the Fall River County courthouse in Hot Springs, South Dakota. Prior to the 2012 election cycle, access to early voting at a location within the borders of Shannon County was minimal. Before this lawsuit was filed, the Shannon County Board of Commissioners planned to offer only six days of early voting at a location within Shannon County. Any other early voting by Shannon County voters had to be done in Fall River County.
Plaintiffs brought this claim on January 13, 2012, because plaintiffs alleged they would have to travel between 53 minutes and 2 hours and 45 minutes from locations in Shannon County to Hot Springs, which is the county seat of Fall River County, to exercise their right to vote. Plaintiffs claimed that this burden upon their right to vote violated the Voting Rights Act, the Indian Citizenship Act, their right to equal protection of the law, and the South Dakota Constitution. Plaintiffs asked the court to grant a preliminary injunction that would force Shannon County to provide early voting for the full statutory period of 46 days at a location within the borders of Shannon County. Plaintiffs also requested permanent injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment proclaiming that defendants’ conduct violated both the law and plaintiffs’ rights.
*2 Prior to the court’s hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, defendants attempted to voluntarily abide by plaintiffs’ request to provide the full 46 days of early voting in Shannon County for the primary and general elections in 2012. This decision was made in part due to the Secretary of State Jason Gant’s commitment to provide an additional $12,000 through Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funds, which would
2

reimburse Shannon County for the 8–hour–per–day wages for the early voting election workers from Fall River County who would operate the voting station in Shannon County. Because of this voluntary conduct, defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary relief on March 6, 2012, claiming the motion was moot because the requested relief had been given. Docket 55.
On March 8, 2012, the court heard evidence and oral argument on the pending motions. Docket 64. Following the hearing, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ request for preliminary relief and denied as moot plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Docket 66; Brooks v. Gant, Civ. No. 12–5003, 2012 WL 871262 (D.S.D. Mar.14, 2012). Plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction and request for declaratory relief continued, and the parties began discovery.
In the interim, defendants voluntarily agreed to provide early voting beyond the 2012 voting cycle within Shannon County. On August 3, 2012, Shannon County and Secretary of State Gant entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (the agreement) whereby Secretary of State Gant agreed to release additional HAVA funds to Shannon County to allow the county to provide staff for early voting at a location within Shannon County through January of 2019. Docket 79–1. On that same day, Shannon County passed two resolutions. The first, Resolution 2012–10, resolved for Shannon County to enter into the agreement. Docket 79–2. The second, Resolution 2012–11, acknowledged that Shannon County agreed to provide in-person, absentee voting at a satellite office in Shannon County for the full 46 days of early voting. The county also agreed to provide notice of such voting rights to the public through 2018. Docket 79–3.
The agreement commenced on August 3, 2012, and it continues through January 1, 2019. The agreement provides that it:
is intended to assist Shannon County in funding federal elections, including absentee voting, in accordance with state and federal law and in compliance with and authorized by the State HAVA plan in effect and as amended from time to time and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 ... as directed by the Secretary of State.
Docket 79–1 at 3. It is undisputed that the Secretary of State would transfer up to $111,000 to Shannon County,

which would bring its total HAVA account balance to $179,910.78. It is undisputed that this amount generally is sufficient to fund the four election cycles of 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018.
*3 On August 10, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ request for permanent injunctive and declaratory relief. Docket 77. Defendants contended plaintiffs’ claims were moot based on defendants’ voluntary cessation of the contested conduct. The court denied defendants’ motion and concluded because the voting agreements and funding only extended through the 2018 voting cycle, plaintiffs’ harm was likely to recur. Docket 106. Secretary of State Gant also moved to dismiss himself as a party based on arguments of standing, sovereign immunity, and other claims. The court denied the motion. Docket 95.
Now defendants move to dismiss based on a different Article III analysis—ripeness—because they claim that plaintiffs’ proposed harm is too uncertain or distant for the court to maintain its subject matter jurisdiction.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides that a court may dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It is a rule “ ‘rooted in the unique nature of the jurisdictional question.’ “ Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 (8th Cir.1990) (quoting Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir.1981)). Under a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the defendant may challenge either the plaintiff’s complaint on its face or based on the factual truthfulness of the claims. Titus v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir.1993); Osborn, 918 F.2d at 729 n. 6. A motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). And if at any time the court concludes that “it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). “Ripeness is peculiarly a question of timing and is governed by the situation at the time of review, rather than the situation at the time of the events under review.” Iowa League of Cities v. E.P.A., 711 F.3d 844, 867 (8th Cir.2013) (quotations and citation omitted).
The plaintiff carries the burden of showing that jurisdiction exists. V S Ltd. P’ship v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 235 F.3d 1109, 1112 (8th Cir.2000) (citation omitted). Under a 12(b)(1) motion “the trial court may proceed as it never could under 12(b)(6) or Fed.R.Civ.P.
3

56. Because at issue in a factual 12(b)(1) motion is the trial court’s jurisdiction-its very power to hear the casethere is substantial authority that the trial court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case.” Osborn, 918 F.2d at 730. Accordingly, the existence of disputed material facts does not prevent the trial court from analyzing the merits of the jurisdictional claims, and no presumptive truthfulness must attach to the facts alleged in the complaint. Id.
DISCUSSION
Defendants argue that dismissal is required because there is no case or controversy that is ripe for the court to adjudicate when any potential injury to plaintiffs is speculative, uncertain, and not imminent. Plaintiffs respond that although plans have been made to ensure that early voting occurs in Shannon County through the 2018 election cycle, there is no guarantee that early voting will be offered after that election year, thus their harm is certain to occur and the injury would be severe as it infringes upon their right to vote.
*4 Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, they only have the ability to hear cases that are authorized by Article III of the Constitution or under the statutes that are duly enacted by Congress. Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., 567 F.3d 976, 982–83 (8th Cir.2009) (citations omitted). Under Article III there must be a case or controversy at every stage of the litigation, which requires “ ‘a definite and concrete controversy involving adverse legal interests[.]’ ” Id. at 983 (quoting McFarlin v. Newport Spec. Sch. Dist., 980 F.2d 1208, 1210 (8th Cir.1992)). “ ‘Federal courts must always satisfy themselves that this requirement has been met before reaching the merits of a case.’ ” Id. (quoting Schanou v. Lancaster Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 160, 62 F.3d 1040, 1042 (8th Cir.1995)). This requirement, also known as a matter’s justiciability, is typically tested by three doctrines: ripeness, mootness, and standing. Id.
Ripeness is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Corp. v. South Dakota, 362 F.3d 512, 520 (8th Cir.2004) (citation omitted). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated the basic rationale behind the ripeness doctrine “ ‘is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements.’ ” Pub. Water Supply Dist. No. 10 v. City of Peculiar, Mo., 345 F.3d 570, 572–73 (8th Cir.2003) (quoting Abbott Labs v. Gardner, 367 U.S. 136, 148 (1967)). Courts also must ask if “a dispute has yet matured to a point that warrants

decision[,]” because “[t]he central concern is whether the case involves uncertain or contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.” 13B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3532 at 365 (3d. ed.2008) (hereafter Wright & Miller). Thus, the ripeness test involves an analysis of both “ ‘the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.’ ” Pub. Water Supply, 345 F.3d at 572–73. The party seeking to invoke jurisdiction must satisfy each prong to a minimal degree. Id. (citation omitted).
A. Fitness This prong of the ripeness determination analyzes the court’s ability to visit a specific issue. Pub. Water Supply, 345 F.3d at 573. Typically, whether a case is fit for review depends on if the case would benefit from additional factual development. Id. (citations omitted). “The case is more likely to be ripe if it poses a purely legal question and is not contingent on future possibilities.” Id. (citation omitted).
As the court noted in a prior order related to mootness, the future is uncertain for voters in Shannon County following the 2018 election cycle. Even so, this is the type of case that would benefit from the development of additional facts because the landscape of both the facts and the law are subject to immense change. It is impossible for the court to address the alleged harm now when the court is unsure as to what election laws will be in place in 2020, what funding will be available for early voting and from what sources, whether permanent donated space will be available in the new Pine Ridge Justice Center to house in-person voting, whether Shannon County will change its home rule charter to appoint or elect its own auditor, whether Shannon County will be contracting with Fall River County for essential services related to voting, and the future makeup of the Board of Commissioners for both Shannon County and Fall River County. The court can neither proceed based solely on defendants’ past wrongs nor guess at the state of affairs as they will exist in 2019 and beyond. For the court to adjudicate this claim now would amount to an advisory opinion based on assumptions and speculation. See KCCP Trust v. City of North Kansas City, 432 F.3d 897, 899 (8th Cir.2005) ( “One kind of advisory opinion is an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.”).
*5 Moreover, South Dakota voting laws have changed recently.1 South Dakota voting laws may continue to change, which would drastically affect both the scope of
4

this claim and the appropriate parties to it. Other states have limited absentee voting, require voting by mail only, or mandate excuserequired absentee voting. South Dakota may adopt some of these changes in the future. The South Dakota Secretary of State will change because of term limits, and the new Secretary of State may disburse HAVA funds more or less generously than the current Secretary of State. Federal HAVA laws may change. Many variables are at play here, and for the court to attempt to guess at not only the factual changes that may occur but also the minds of the South Dakota Legislature and other elected officials is an insurmountable task at this stage of the litigation. See 13B Wright & Miller § 3532.3 at 494 (“The need for more precise development to frame constitutional issues may arise with respect to state law as well as to facts.”). Plaintiffs have not met their burden to establish that the issue is currently fit for judicial decision.
B. Hardship to the Parties The hardship to the parties prong is equally unavailing to persuade the court that subject matter jurisdiction exists here. To determine hardship to the parties “abstract injury is not enough. It must be alleged that the plaintiff has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged statute or official conduct.” Pub. Water Supply, 345 F.3d at 573 (quotations and citations omitted). This hardship factor assesses the potential harm suffered, either financial or due to uncertainty-induced behavior in the absence of adjudication. Id. Plaintiffs do not have to wait until the injury occurs, but the injury should be certainly impending. Iowa League of Cities v. E.P.A., 711 F.3d 844, 867 (8th Cir.2013). The court considers both the size of the alleged harm and its immediacy when determining hardship. Id.
Plaintiffs argue that their harm is immediate, direct, and certain. Plaintiffs first allege that their harm is both immediate and direct because certain rights like voting, which are fundamental rights afforded to all citizens, must be carefully guarded. The court agrees with this argument in theory, because voting traditionally has been more protected2 than some rights, but not in practice. Plaintiffs have admitted their alleged injury will not occur until after the 2018 voting cycle concludes and HAVA funds have been exhausted. While the eventual harm could be severe if the events unfold as plaintiffs predict they will in 2019, the immediacy consideration is nonexistent here. See Emp’rs Ass’n, Inc. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 32 F.3d 1297, 1299 (8th Cir.1994) (“Ripeness is demonstrated by a showing that a live controversy exists such that the plaintiffs will sustain immediate injury from

the operation of the challenged provisions, and that the injury would be redressed by the relief requested.”) (emphasis added). There is no evidence that plaintiffs are immediately in danger of sustaining injury to their voting rights, and the type or degree of the harm does not surmount the immediacy consideration in this case.
*6 Plaintiffs contend that their harm is certain by citing to this court’s prior order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss based on mootness for the proposition that plaintiffs’ harm is certain to recur. Plaintiff did not acknowledge, however, that the court’s tests for mootness and ripeness are different. See 13B Wright 8s Miller § 3532.1 at 383 (“As compared to mootness, which asks whether there is anything left for the court to do, ripeness asks whether there yet is any need for the court to act.”). The court previously determined that plaintiffs’ claims were not moot because “it is likely” that HAVA funds will run out in 2019 and “plaintiffs will again be faced with the same hurdles to early voting that existed at the start of this litigation because Shannon County lacks the funding to permanently support early voting.” Docket 106 at 9. Here, while there may be something left for the court to do, the court does not yet need to act because plaintiffs’ alleged harm is not certain to occur now or in 2019. The court previously found that harm was only likely to recur. This is a distinction that makes a difference.
The court finds plaintiffs’ permanent injunction request is not ripe for the aforementioned reasons. The court will not permanently enjoin conduct of state actors when the factual record is undeveloped, state and federal law could dramatically change, and there is not substantial proof of impending and certain harm. Declaratory relief is equally unripe at this time because the Declaratory Judgment Act does not provide a vehicle to skirt issues of ripeness and this claim has not met the requirements set by Article III. See Pub. Water Supply, 345 F.3d at 572 (“The Declaratory Judgment Act did not extend federal court jurisdiction beyond the recognized boundaries of justiciability, but only ‘enlarged the range of remedies available.’ ”).
It is plaintiffs’ burden to provide facts that satisfy the court that it has the necessary subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the case before it. Plaintiffs fail to carry their jurisdictional burden by establishing that their claim is fit for adjudication and that they will suffer substantial hardship through injury that is imminent, direct, and certain. Dismissal is appropriate.

CONCLUSION
At this time plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are too speculative for the court to make a judicial determination on the merits. Therefore, the issues are not ripe for adjudication, and the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to continue. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice (Docket 118) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Docket 91) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Secretary of State Gant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket 96) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Fall River County defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket 97) is denied as moot.
*7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket 100) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ statement of undisputed material facts (Docket 113) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ expert report and motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Thomas L. Brunell (Docket 140) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion in limine to preclude the testimony and report of plaintiffs’ expert Richard Braunstein, Ph.D. (Docket 147) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Secretary of State Gant’s motion for joinder (Docket 152) is denied as moot.
All Citations
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 4017036

Footnotes 5

1

For example, in 2003 the South Dakota Legislature added a requirement for voters to provide photo identification before voting.

SDCL 12–18–6.1.

2

See 13B Wright 8s Miller § 3532.3 at 494 (“The assessment of hardship may be complicated, however, by the fact that some

rights are more jealously protected than others.”).

6

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION

CHRIS BROOKS,

)

FRANCIS RENCOUNTRE,

)

GLORIA RED EAGLE,

)

SHARON CONDEN,

)

JACQUELINE GARNIER,

)

JENNIFER RED OWL,

)

EDWINA WESTON,

)

MICHELLE WESTON,

)

MONETTE TWO EAGLE,

)

MARK A. MESTETH,

)

STACY TWO LANCE,

)

HARRY BROWN,

)

ELEANOR WESTON,

)

DAWN BLACK BULL,

)

CLARICE MESTETH,

)

DONOVAN L. STEELE,

)

EILEEN JANIS,

)

LEONA LITTLE HAWK,

)

EVAN RENCOUNTRE,

)

CECIL LITTLE HAWK, SR.,

)

LINDA RED CLOUD,

)

LORETTA LITTLE HAWK,

)

FAITH TWO EAGLE,

)

EDMOND MESTETH, and

)

ELMER KILLS BACK, JR.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

JASON GANT, in his official capacity as

)

South Dakota Secretary of State,

)

SHANNON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA,

)

FALL RIVER COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, )

SHANNON COUNTY BOARD OF

)

COMMISSIONERS,

)

FALL RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF

)

COMMISSIONERS,

)

JOE FALKENBUERG, in his official

)

capacity as a member of the County Board )

of Commissioners for Fall River County, )

South Dakota,

)

ANNE CASSENS, in her official capacity as )

a member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Fall River County,

)

South Dakota,

)

MICHAEL P. ORTNER, in his official

)

capacity as a member of the County Board )

CIV. 12-5003-KES
ORDER DENYING BILL OF COSTS

of Commissioners for Fall River County, )

South Dakota,

)

DEB RUSSELL, in her official capacity as a )

member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Fall River County,

)

South Dakota,

)

JOE ALLEN, in his official capacity as a

)

member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Fall River County,

)

South Dakota,

)

BRYAN J. KEHN, in his official capacity as a )

member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Shannon

)

County, South Dakota,

)

DELORIS HAGMAN, in her official capacity )

as a member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Shannon

)

County, South Dakota,

)

EUGENIO B. WHITE HAWK, in his official )

capacity as a member of the County Board of)

Commissioners for Shannon County, South )

Dakota,

)

WENDELL YELLOW BULL, in his official )

capacity as a member of the County Board of)

Commissioners for Shannon County, South )

Dakota,

)

LYLA HUTCHISON, in her official capacity as )

a member of the County Board of

)

Commissioners for Shannon

)

County, South Dakota,

)

SUE GANJE, in her official capacity as the )

County Auditor for Shannon and Fall River )

Counties, and

)

JAMES SWORD, in his official

)

capacity as Attorney for Shannon and Fall )

River Counties,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Defendants seek $6,328.54 in their bill of costs, which was filed after

this court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs’ complaint on ripeness

grounds. After the complaint was filed, defendants voluntarily agreed to provide

all the relief plaintiffs requested through the 2018 election cycle. The court

dismissed the complaint on ripeness grounds, because any potential injury to

2

plaintiffs after 2018 would be too speculative, uncertain, and was not imminent. In effect though, plaintiffs received all the relief they requested.
Rule 54(d)(1) provides that “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs–other than attorney’s fees–should be allowed to the prevailing party.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920 enumerates the costs that are recoverable. While Rule 54(d) presumes an award of costs to the prevailing party, the district court retains substantial discretion in awarding costs. Computrol, Inc. v. Newtrend, L.P., 203 F.3d 1064, 1072 (8th Cir. 2000). In fact, Rule 54(d) uses permissive terms and generally grants a federal court the discretion to refuse to tax costs in favor of the prevailing party. Marmo v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 457 F.3d 748, 762 (8th Cir. 2006). A district court's decision concerning the award of costs is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Martin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 251 F.3d 691, 695 (8th Cir. 2001).
Under the facts of this case, it would be unjust to require plaintiffs to pay defendants’ costs. Defendants refused to provide plaintiffs with the relief they requested until this lawsuit was filed. It was only when defendants faced actual litigation that defendants were able to work cooperatively with each other to provide the relief sought by plaintiffs. Additionally, plaintiffs stood to gain nothing personally from this Voting Rights Act litigation. The action was brought by individual plaintiffs, all of whom are persons without great means, to vindicate the voting right of all Native Americans who live on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Defendants on the other hand, who are being represented
3

by the South Dakota Public Assurance Alliance, have the wherewithal to afford to pay their share of the costs associated with this litigation. Had defendants voluntarily agreed to provide the relief requested by plaintiffs when approached before the litigation was filed, they could have avoided the costs they are now seeking. It is
ORDERED that no costs will be taxed to either party. Dated September 19, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4

 
 Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 1 of 21
U.S. District Court District of South Dakota (Western Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:12−cv−05003−KES

CLOSED

Brooks et al v. Gant et al Assigned to: U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act − Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/13/2012 Date Terminated: 08/06/2013 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Chris Brooks

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven Steven D. Sandven Law Offices 300 N. Dakota Ave. Suite 106 Sioux Falls, SD 57104−6026 (605) 332−4408 Fax: (605) 332−4496 Email: ssandvenlaw@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Francis Rencountre

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gloria Red Eagle

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sharon Conden

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jacqueline Garnier

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jennifer Red Owl

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Edwina Weston

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michelle Weston

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 2 of 21

Monette Two Eagle

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mark A. Mesteth

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Stacy Two Lance

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Harry Brown

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Eleanor Weston

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dawn Black Bull

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Clarice Mesteth

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Donovan L. Steele

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Eileen Janis

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Leona Little Hawk

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Evan Rencountre

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Cecil Little Hawk, Sr.

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 3 of 21

Plaintiff Linda Red Cloud
Plaintiff Loretta Little Hawk
Plaintiff Faith Two Eagle
Plaintiff Edmond Mesteth
Plaintiff Elmer Kills Back, Jr.

represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Steven Daniel Sandven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Jason Gant in his official capacity as South Dakota Secretary of State
Defendant Shannon County, South Dakota

represented by Richard M. Williams Attorney General of South Dakota 1302 E. Highway 14 Suite 1 Pierre, SD 57501−8501 773−3215 Email: rich.williams@state.sd.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sara Frankenstein Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson & Ashmore, LLP 506 Sixth Street PO Box 8045 Rapid City, SD 57709−8045 (605) 342−1078 Fax: (605) 342−0480 Email: sfrankenstein@gpnalaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca L. Mann Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson & Ashmore, LLP 506 Sixth Street PO Box 8045 Rapid City, SD 57709−8045 (605) 342−1078 Fax: (605) 342−0480 Email: rmann@gpna.com

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 4 of 21

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Fall River County, South Dakota

represented by Sara Frankenstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca L. Mann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Shannon County Board of Commissioners

represented by Sara Frankenstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca L. Mann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Fall River County Board of Commissioners

represented by Sara Frankenstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca L. Mann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Joe Falkenbuerg in his official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Fall River County, South Dakota

represented by Sara Frankenstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca L. Mann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Anne Cassens in her official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Fall River County, South Dakota

represented by Sara Frankenstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca L. Mann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Michael P. Ortner in his official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Fall River County, South Dakota

represented by Sara Frankenstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca L. Mann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 5 of 21

Defendant Deb Russell in her official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Fall River County, South Dakota
Defendant Joe Allen in his official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Fall River County, South Dakota
Defendant Bryan J. Kehn in his official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Shannon County, South Dakota
Defendant Deloris Hagman in her official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Shannon County, South Dakota
Defendant Eugenio B. White Hawk in his official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Shannon County, South Dakota
Defendant Wendell Yellow Bull in his official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Shannon County, South Dakota
Defendant

represented by Sara Frankenstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca L. Mann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sara Frankenstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca L. Mann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sara Frankenstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca L. Mann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sara Frankenstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca L. Mann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sara Frankenstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca L. Mann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sara Frankenstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca L. Mann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 6 of 21

Lyla Hutchison in her official capacity as a member of the County Board of Commissioners for Shannon County, South Dakota

represented by Sara Frankenstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca L. Mann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Sue Ganje in her official capacity as the County Auditor for Shannon and Fall River Counties

represented by Sara Frankenstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca L. Mann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
James Sword in his official capacity as Attorney for Shannon and Fall River Counties

represented by Sara Frankenstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca L. Mann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus ACLU of South Dakota

represented by Robert J. Doody PO Box 509 Sisseton, SD 57262 Email: robert@rjdoodylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/13/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Sharon Conden, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. (Attachments: # 1 Ex 1 − Brief History of Lakota and Pine Ridge Reservation Red Cloud Indian School, # 2 Ex 2 − Statistics for Pine Ridge, # 3 Ex 3 − South Dakota: Pine Ridge Reservation, American Indian Relief Council, # 4 Ex 4 − Testimony of the Hon. John YEllow Bird Steele March 22, 2007, # 5 Ex 5 − Affidavit of Bret Healy, # 6 Ex 6 − SD Secretary of State 2004 Absentee Ballot Records, # 7 Ex 7 − SD Secretary of State 2004 Voter Turnout Records, # 8 Ex 8 − SD Secretary of State 2006 Absentee Ballot Records, # 9 Ex 9 − SD Secretary of State 2006 Voter Turnout Records, # 10 Ex 10 − 2008 SD Official General Election Results Turnout, # 11 Ex 11 − SD Secretary of State 2008 Absentee Ballot Records, # 12 Ex 12 − NPR article Native Americans Face Voting Roadblocks, # 13 Ex 13 − SD Secretary of State 2010 Absentee Ballot Records, # 14 Ex 14 − 2010 SD Official General Election Results Turnout, # 15 Ex 15 − Ltr from James G. Sword to Senator Tim Johnson 10/21/09, # 16 Ex 16 − Ltr from James G. Sword to Brendan Johnson 12/31/09, # 17 Ex 17 − Memorandum of Agreement 4/23/10, # 18 Ex 18 − 8/18/10 ltr from Theresa Two Bulls to Shannon County Commissioners, # 19 Ex 19 − RC Journal article 12/10/11, # 20 Ex 20 − Ltr from Gant to Sandven 12/30/11, # 21 Ex 21 − HAVA State Plan for SD updated March 2010, # 22 Ex 22 − RC Journal article 9/24/10, # 23 Ex 23 − Ganje ltr to Sandven 12/21/11, # 24 Ex 24 − Total State Government Budget FY 2012, # 25 Ex 25 − Complaint, # 26

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 7 of 21

01/13/2012
01/13/2012 01/13/2012 01/13/2012 01/13/2012 01/13/2012
01/13/2012
01/13/2012 01/13/2012 01/13/2012 01/13/2012 01/13/2012 01/13/2012 01/16/2012 01/17/2012 01/17/2012
01/17/2012 01/18/2012
01/19/2012 01/19/2012 01/20/2012

Ex 26 − Appendix A) (DJP) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, MOTION for Permanent Injunction by All Plaintiffs and memorandum in support thereof (DJP) Modified on 7/3/2012 to terminate second motion (SST). (Entered: 01/13/2012)
3 CIVIL COVER SHEET (DJP) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
4 Summons Issued as to Jason Gant (handed true copy to Plaintiffs' attorney) (DJP) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
5 Summons Issued as to James Sword (handed true copy to Plaintiffs' attorney) (DJP) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
6 Summons Issued as to Sue Ganje (handed true copy to Plaintiffs' attorney) (DJP) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
7 Summons Issued as to Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, Eugenio White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull (handed true copy to Plaintiffs' attorney). (DJP) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
8 Summons Issued as to Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell (handed true copy to Plaintiffs' attorney) (DJP) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
9 Summons Issued as to Bryan J. Kehn (handed true copy to Plaintiffs' attorney) (DJP) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
10 Summons Issued as to Deloris Hagman (handed true copy to Plaintiffs' attorney) (DJP) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
11 Summons Issued as to Eugenio B. White Hawk (handed true copy to Plaintiffs' attorney) (DJP) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
12 Summons Issued as to Wendell Yellow Bull (handed true copy to Plaintiffs' attorney) (DJP) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
13 Summons Issued as to Lyla Hutchison (handed true copy to Plaintiffs' attorney) (DJP) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
14 ORDER OF RECUSAL. U. S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Viken recused. Signed by U. S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Viken on 1/13/12. (SB) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
15 MOTION for Hearing by All Plaintiffs. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 01/16/2012)
16 Filing fee received: Fee Amount: $ 350, Receipt #: SDX400024466. (SLW) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
17 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier for all further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier on 1/17/2012. (KC) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard M. Williams on behalf of Jason Gant (Williams, Richard) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
19 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Chris Brooks. Jason Gant waiver sent on 1/17/2012, answer due 3/19/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
20 RETURN OF SERVICE Executed upon Defendant James Sword on 01/18/12 (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
21 RETURN OF SERVICE Executed upon Defendant Sue Ganje on 01/18/12 (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
NOTICE of Filing Error: Return of Service Executed 21 , Return of Service Executed 20 FILED IN ERROR (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 01/20/2012)

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 8 of 21

01/20/2012 01/20/2012 01/24/2012 01/24/2012 01/24/2012 01/24/2012 01/24/2012 01/24/2012

22 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Sharon Conden, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. Sue Ganje served on 1/18/2012, answer due 2/8/2012. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
23 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. James Sword served on 1/18/2012, answer due 2/8/2012. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
24 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Sharon Conden, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. Shannon County, South Dakota waiver sent on 1/24/2012, answer due 3/26/2012. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 01/24/2012)
25 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Sharon Conden, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. Shannon County Board of Commissioners waiver sent on 1/24/2012, answer due 3/26/2012. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 01/24/2012)
26 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. Bryan J. Kehn waiver sent on 1/24/2012, answer due 3/26/2012. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 01/24/2012)
27 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Sharon Conden, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. Lyla Hutchison waiver sent on 1/24/2012, answer due 3/26/2012. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 01/24/2012)
28 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Sharon Conden, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. Eugenio B. White Hawk waiver sent on 1/24/2012, answer due 3/26/2012. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 01/24/2012)
29 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 9 of 21

01/25/2012 01/26/2012 01/27/2012 02/08/2012 02/08/2012 02/08/2012 02/08/2012 02/08/2012

Weston, Sharon Conden, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. Deloris Hagman waiver sent on 1/24/2012, answer due 3/26/2012. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 01/24/2012)
30 NOTICE of Appearance by Sara Frankenstein on behalf of Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 01/25/2012)
31 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Sharon Conden, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. Wendell Yellow Bull waiver sent on 1/25/2012, answer due 3/26/2012. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
32 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction: Motion Hearing set for 3/8/2012 at 09:00 AM in Rapid City Courtroom 2 − Room 236 before Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier. Signed by Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier on 1/27/2012. (KC) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
33 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Sharon Conden, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. Fall River County, South Dakota waiver sent on 2/6/2012, answer due 4/6/2012. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
34 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Sharon Conden, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. Fall River County Board of Commissioners waiver sent on 2/6/2012, answer due 4/6/2012. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
35 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Sharon Conden, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. Deb Russell waiver sent on 2/6/2012, answer due 4/6/2012. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
36 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Sharon Conden, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. Michael P. Ortner waiver sent on 2/6/2012, answer due 4/6/2012. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
37 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Sharon Conden, Evan Rencountre,

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 10 of 21

02/08/2012
02/08/2012 02/08/2012 02/08/2012 02/08/2012 02/14/2012 02/14/2012 02/14/2012 02/14/2012

Jacqueline Garnier. Anne Cassens waiver sent on 2/6/2012, answer due 4/6/2012. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
38 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Sharon Conden, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. Joe Falkenbuerg waiver sent on 2/6/2012, answer due 4/6/2012. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
39 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Sharon Conden, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. Joe Allen waiver sent on 2/6/2012, answer due 4/6/2012. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
40 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Sharon Conden, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
41 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Linda Red Cloud, Edwina Weston, Francis Rencountre, Eileen Janis, Chris Brooks, Leona Little Hawk, Donovan L. Steele, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Dawn Black Bull, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Stacy Two Lance, Loretta Little Hawk, Faith Two Eagle, Eleanor Weston, Jennifer Red Owl, Gloria Red Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Harry Brown, Clarice Mesteth, Michelle Weston, Sharon Conden, Evan Rencountre, Jacqueline Garnier. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
42 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,,,,,,, with Jury Demand by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
43 MOTION to Dismiss by Jason Gant. (Williams, Richard) (Entered: 02/14/2012)
44 BRIEF by Defendant Jason Gant re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Permanent Injunction, 43 MOTION to Dismiss. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Chapter 45 (H.B. 1197), # 2 Exhibit Shannon County Charter, # 3 Exhibit Federal Register)(Williams, Richard) (Entered: 02/14/2012)
45 RESPONSE to Motion re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 02/14/2012)
46 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Shannon−Fall River Co. Contract 2012), # 2 Exhibit B (Shannon Co. Minutes September 8, 2004) # 3 Exhibit C (Shannon Co. Minutes of December 2, 2011), # 4 Exhibit D (10 County Comparison), # 5 Exhibit E (Shannon County Minutes of

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 11 of 21

02/21/2012 02/21/2012
02/21/2012
02/27/2012 03/05/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012

September 9, 2011)(Frankenstein, Sara) Modified on 2/15/2012 to add descriptions (DJP). (Entered: 02/14/2012)
47 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 43 MOTION to Dismiss and Reply Brief filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
48 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 43 MOTION to Dismiss and Reply Brief with Exhibits 1−18 filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 EX 1A (Shannon−Fall River County Contract 2012), # 2 EX 1B (Shannon−Fall River County Contract 2011), # 3 EX 1C (Shannon−Fall River County Contract 2010), # 4 EX 1D (Shannon−Fall River County Contract 2009), # 5 EX 1E (Shannon−Fall River County Contract 2008), # 6 EX 1F (Shannon−Fall River County Contract 2007), # 7 EX 1G (Shannon−Fall River County Contract 2006), # 8 EX 1H (Shannon−Fall River County Contract 2005), # 9 EX 1I (Shannon−Fall River County Contract 2004), # 10 EX 2 (1/24/12 memo from Congressional Research Service), # 11 EX 3 (RC Journal article 1/18/12), # 12 EX 4(Argus Leader online article 1/18/12) , # 13 EX 5 (100r.org online article 1/31/12), # 14 EX 6 (2010 HAVA State Plan for SD), # 15 EX 7 (worksheet regarding absentee ballot percentages), # 16 EX 8 (2012 Narrative for Oglala Sioux Tribe Department of Public Safety), # 17 EX 9 (Worksheet re: travel to courthouses in SD), # 18 EX 10 (worksheet re: travel from towns in Shannon Co to Fall River Courthouse), # 19 EX 11 (worksheet re: travel from the largest city in a county to county seat), # 20 EX 12 (worksheet re: travel from second largest city in county to county seat), # 21 EX 13 (worksheet re: Shannon Co voter turnout percentages compared to rest of SD), # 22 EX 14 (Worksheet re: mileage comparisons between Shannon and Meade Counties), # 23 EX 15 (Statement of Organization filed by Jason Gant 1/26/11), # 24 EX 16 (Advertisements for interpet providers in Pine Ridge), # 25 EX 17 (2012 Bill History for SD 58), # 26 EX 18 (Post Office closings in Wounded Knee and Manderson))(Sandven, Steven) Modified on 2/22/2012 to add descriptions (DJP). (Entered: 02/21/2012)
49 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 43 MOTION to Dismiss Affidavit Supplement w/ Exhibits 19−31 filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 EX 19 − 2012 Election Calendar, # 2 EX 20 − B. Healy Affidavit, # 3 EX 21 − Shannon Cty Minutes 09/03/10, # 4 EX 22 − OJ Semans Affidavit, # 5 EX 23A − Shannon Cty Minutes 02/04/11, # 6 EX 23B − Shannon Cty Minutes 03/04/11, # 7 EX 23C − Shannon Cty Minutes 05/06/11, # 8 EX 23D − Shannon Cty Minutes 11/04/11, # 9 EX 24A − Shannon Cty Minutes 09/03/10, # 10 EX 24B − Shannon Cty Minutes 12/03/10, # 11 EX 25 − Election Board Minutes 11/29/11, # 12 EX 26 − Shannon Cty Map, # 13 EX 27 − M. Two Eagle Affidavit, # 14 EX 28 − C. Mesteth Affidavit, # 15 EX 29 − E. Mesteth Affidavit, # 16 EX 30 − S. Two Lance Affidavit, # 17 EX 31 D. BlackBull Affidavit)(Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
50 REPLY to 47 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 45 Response to Motion, filed by Jason Gant. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 11/29/11 letter to Gant, # 2 Exhibit Federal Register Vol. 76)(Williams, Richard) (Entered: 02/27/2012)
51 First MOTION for Leave to ACLU Amicus by Robert James Doody. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ACLU Amicus Brief)(Doody, Robert) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
52 TEXT ORDER granting 51 Motion for Leave to file amicus brief. Signed by Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier on 3/6/2012. (KC) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
53 SUBPOENA for Jim Sword returned (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
54 SUBPOENA for Sue Ganje returned (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by All Defendants. (Williams, Richard) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
56 MEMORANDUM in Support re 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Defendants. (Williams, Richard) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
57 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit March 1, 2012 Letter, # 2 Exhibit March 2, 2012 letter, # 3 Exhibit Shannon County Minutes)(Williams, Richard) (Entered: 03/06/2012)

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 12 of 21

03/07/2012 03/07/2012 03/07/2012 03/07/2012
03/07/2012 03/07/2012
03/08/2012 03/08/2012
03/14/2012 03/15/2012
03/15/2012 03/19/2012
03/23/2012 04/06/2012

58 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
59 AFFIDAVIT of Steven D. Sandven in Opposition re 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction of filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 1 RC Journal Article 02March12)(Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
60 REPLY to Motion Response re 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Defendants. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
61 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 9; Shannon−Fall River Couny Contract − 2012 Amended, # 2 Exhibit 10; Shannon−State's Attorney Contract − 2012 Amended)(Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
62 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Defendants. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
63 MOTION for Sequence of Testimony by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
64 Motion Hearing held on 3/8/2012 re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Permanent Injunction, 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction before Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier (Court Reporter Connie Heckenlaible) (SLT) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
65 EXHIBIT LIST re: 64 Motion Hearing held on 3/8/2012 re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Permanent Injunction, 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.(SLT) (Main Document 65 replaced on 3/16/2012 with corrected date on exhibit list) (SLT). (Entered: 03/08/2012)
66 ORDER granting 55 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier on 03/14/2012. (MWT) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
67 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re 64 Motion Hearing, held on March 8, 2012 before Judge Schreier. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Connie Heckenlaible, Telephone number 605−945−4622. Transcript may be viewed at the Clerk's Office public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 4/9/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/19/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/18/2012. (CJH) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
68 NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript re: 64 Motion Hearing,. Notice mailed to non−ecf counsel. (CJH) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
69 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 11; Shannon−Fall River County Contract − 2012 − Amended, # 2 Exhibit 12; Shannon−State's Attorney Contract − 2012 − Amended)(Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
70 ORDER For Form 52 Report and Scheduling Information. Signed by Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier on 3/23/2012. (KC) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
71 FORM 52 REPORT of Parties Planning Meeting. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 04/06/2012)

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 13 of 21

04/09/2012 07/30/2012
07/30/2012
07/30/2012
08/01/2012 08/10/2012 08/10/2012 08/10/2012
08/14/2012
08/21/2012 08/21/2012

72 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 8/31/2012 Motions due by 10/1/2012. Signed by Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier on 4/9/12. (CMS) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
73 MOTION to Extend Deadlines by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Mann, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
74 MEMORANDUM in Support re 73 MOTION to Extend Deadlines filed by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Mann, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
75 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 73 MOTION to Extend Deadlines filed by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Mann, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
76 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 73 MOTION to Extend Deadlines filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
77 Joint MOTION to Dismiss by All Defendants. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
78 MEMORANDUM in Support re 77 Joint MOTION to Dismiss filed by All Defendants. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
79 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 77 Joint MOTION to Dismiss filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Agreement, # 2 Exhibit Resolution #2012−10, # 3 Exhibit Resolution #2012−11, # 4 Exhibit Anticipated 2012 Election Costs Chart, # 5 Exhibit March 8, 2012 Hearing Transcript, # 6 Exhibit Nelson Depo Transcript, # 7 Exhibit Gant Depo Transcript, # 8 Exhibit Frankenstein March 1, 2012 Letter, # 9 Exhibit Williams March 2, 2012 Letter, # 10 Exhibit Ganje Depo Transcript)(Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
80 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 77 Joint MOTION to Dismiss filed by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Agreement)(Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
81 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 77 Joint MOTION to Dismiss filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
82 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 77 Joint MOTION to Dismiss filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EX 1 − Defendant Ganje's Responses, # 2 Exhibit EX 2 − C Nelson Email, # 3 Exhibit EX 3 − C Nelson Email, # 4 Exhibit EX 4 − OST Memo, # 5 Exhibit EX 5 − Defendant Gant Responses, # 6 Exhibit EX 6 − Defendant Shannon County Responses, # 7 Exhibit EX 7 − Defendant Fall River Responses, # 8 Exhibit EX 8 − Defendant Gant Responses, # 9 Exhibit EX 9 − Plaintiffs' November 14, 2011 Memo, # 10 Exhibit EX 10 − Plaintiffs' November 26, 2011 Memo, # 11 Exhibit EX 11 − Plaintiffs' November 14, 2011 Memo, # 12 Exhibit EX −12 Plaintiffs' November 26, 2011 Memo, # 13 Exhibit EX 13 − Plaintiffs' December 19, 2011 Memo, # 14 Exhibit EX 14 − Shannon Cty Minutes, # 15 Exhibit EX 15 − Shannon County Minutes, # 16 Exhibit EX 16 − States Attorney Memo, # 17 Exhibit EX 17 − Shannon−Fall River Contract, # 18 Exhibit EX 18 − Defendant Gant Deposition Excerpts, # 19 Exhibit EX 19 − C Nelson Deposition Excerpts, # 20 Exhibit EX 20 − Defendant Ganje Deposition Excerpts, # 21 Exhibit EX 21 − L Hutchinson Deposition Excerpts)(Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 08/21/2012)

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 14 of 21

08/31/2012 08/31/2012 09/07/2012 09/07/2012 09/07/2012 09/11/2012
09/17/2012 09/18/2012 09/21/2012
09/21/2012
09/21/2012

83 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 73 MOTION to Extend Deadlines Supplemental Pleading filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
84 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 73 MOTION to Extend Deadlines filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs Memo 16August12, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiffs Email 27August12, # 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs Email 30August12, # 4 Exhibit Plaintiffs Expert Report, # 5 Exhibit Defendants Memo 16August12, # 6 Exhibit Plaintiffs Initial Disclosures 03April12, # 7 Exhibit Plaintiffs Email 30August12, # 8 Exhibit Seman Deposition Notice 30August12)(Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
85 AFFIDAVIT of Sue Ganje. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 09/07/2012)
86 REPLY to Motion Response re 77 Joint MOTION to Dismiss filed by All Defendants. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 09/07/2012)
87 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 77 Joint MOTION to Dismiss filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Nelson Depo, # 2 Exhibit Hutchison Depo, # 3 Exhibit Gant Depo, # 4 Exhibit Ganje Depo, # 5 Exhibit 2008 HAVA Form, # 6 Exhibit May 9, 2012 letter, # 7 Exhibit Shannon/Fall River County Contract, # 8 Exhibit August 23, 2010 email, # 9 Exhibit March 8, 2012 Hearing Transcript)(Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 09/07/2012)
88 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 86 Reply to Motion Response by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Jason Gant, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected Defendants' Joint Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss)(Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 09/11/2012)
89 ORDER granting 88 Motion to Amend/Correct granting motion to correct defendants' joint reply. Signed by Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier on 9/17/2012. (KC) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
90 REPLY to Motion Response re 77 Joint MOTION to Dismiss CORRECTED filed by All Defendants. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
91 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Dawn Black Bull, Chris Brooks, Harry Brown, Sharon Conden, Jacqueline Garnier, Eileen Janis, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Leona Little Hawk, Loretta Little Hawk, Clarice Mesteth, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Linda Red Cloud, Gloria Red Eagle, Jennifer Red Owl, Evan Rencountre, Francis Rencountre, Donovan L. Steele, Faith Two Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Stacy Two Lance, Edwina Weston, Eleanor Weston, Michelle Weston. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts)(Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
92 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 91 MOTION for Summary Judgment Exhibits 1−12 filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J. Gant Deposition Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit C. (Refiled as doc 94) Nelson Deposition Excerpts, # 3 Exhibit S. Ganje Deposition Excerpts, # 4 Exhibit L. Hutchinson Deposition Excerpts, # 5 Exhibit S. Ganje Responses, # 6 Exhibit S. Ganje Responses, # 7 Exhibit Shannon County Responses, # 8 Exhibit Fall River Responses, # 9 Exhibit Shannon County Minutes December 2, 2011, # 10 Exhibit Plaintiffs' First Request to Shannon County for Early Voting, # 11 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Second Request to Shannon County for Early Voting, # 12 Exhibit Dr. Braunstein Expert Report)(Sandven, Steven) Modified on 9/25/2012 (SLW). (Entered: 09/21/2012)
93 SUPPLEMENTAL Exhibits to 92 Affidavit re: 91 Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Dawn Black Bull, Chris Brooks, Harry Brown, Sharon Conden, Jacqueline Garnier, Eileen Janis, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Leona Little Hawk, Loretta Little Hawk, Clarice Mesteth, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Linda Red Cloud, Gloria Red Eagle, Jennifer Red Owl, Evan Rencountre, Francis Rencountre, Donovan L. Steele, Faith Two Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Stacy Two Lance, Edwina Weston, Eleanor Weston, Michelle Weston Sandven Affidavit Exhibits 13−33. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EX 13 C Nelson Email to S.Ganje, # 2 Exhibit EX 14 C.Nelson Email to S. Ganje, # 3 Exhibit EX 15 Oglala Sioux Tribe Request to

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 15 of 21

09/24/2012
09/27/2012 10/01/2012 10/01/2012 10/01/2012
10/01/2012 10/01/2012 10/01/2012 10/01/2012

Shannon County for Early Voting, # 4 Exhibit EX 16 Shannon County Minutes March 2, 2012, # 5 Exhibit EX 17 Plaintiffs' First Request to Secretary of State for Early Voting, # 6 Exhibit EX 18 Plaintiffs' Second Request to Secretary of State for Early Voting, # 7 Exhibit EX 19 Plaintiffs' Third Request to Secretary of State for Early Voting, # 8 Exhibit EX 20 March 8 Hearing Transcript Excerpts, # 9 Exhibit EX 21 Dawn Black Bull Affidavit, # 10 Exhibit EX 22 Clarice Mesteth Affidavit, # 11 Exhibit EX 23 Defendant Gant Responses, # 12 Exhibit EX 24 Defendant Gant Responses, # 13 Exhibit EX 25 Oliver J. Semans Deposition Transcript Excerpts, # 14 Exhibit EX 26 Dr. Braunstein Deposition Excerpts, # 15 Exhibit EX 27 Oliver J. Semans Affidavit, # 16 Exhibit EX 28 2010 Turnout, # 17 Exhibit EX 29 2004 Turnout, # 18 Exhibit EX 30 2006 Turnout, # 19 Exhibit EX 31 Gant Responses, # 20 Exhibit EX 32 Oglala Lakota College Case Statement, # 21 Exhibit EX 33 RC Journal Article)(Sandven, Steven) Modified on 9/25/2012 to add link and text(SLW). (Entered: 09/21/2012)
94 SUPPLEMENTAL Exhibits (replaced Exhibit 2 to 92 Affidavit re: 91 Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Dawn Black Bull, Chris Brooks, Harry Brown, Sharon Conden, Jacqueline Garnier, Eileen Janis, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Leona Little Hawk, Loretta Little Hawk, Clarice Mesteth, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Linda Red Cloud, Gloria Red Eagle, Jennifer Red Owl, Evan Rencountre, Francis Rencountre, Donovan L. Steele, Faith Two Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Stacy Two Lance, Edwina Weston, Eleanor Weston, Michelle Weston S. Sandven Aff. EX 2 C. Nelson Deposition Excerpts Parts I and II. (Attachments: # 1 Sandven Aff. Ex. 2 C. Nelson Deposition Excerpts Part II)(Sandven, Steven) Modified on 9/25/2012 to add link and text(SLW). (Entered: 09/24/2012)
95 ORDER denying 43 Gant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier on 9/27/2012. (KC) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
96 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Jason Gant. (Williams, Richard) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
97 MOTION for Summary Judgment Fall River County Defendants by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, James Sword. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
98 STATEMENT OF Fall River County Defendants MATERIAL FACTS re 97 Motion for Summary Judgment, by Defendants Michael P. Ortner, Anne Cassens, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Joe Falkenbuerg, Joe Allen, James Sword, Sue Ganje, Deb Russell filed by Michael P. Ortner, Anne Cassens, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Joe Falkenbuerg, Joe Allen, James Sword, Sue Ganje, Deb Russell. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
99 MEMORANDUM in Support re 97 MOTION for Summary Judgment Fall River County Defendants filed by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, James Sword. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
100 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment All Defendants by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Jason Gant, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
101 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 100 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment All Defendants filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Nelson Depo., # 2 Exhibit Ganje Depo., # 3 Exhibit McDonald Article, # 4 Exhibit Gronke Article, # 5 Exhibit Neeley Article, # 6 Exhibit Brunell Expert Report, # 7 Exhibit Gant Responses)(Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
102 MEMORANDUM in Support re 100 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment All Defendants filed by All Defendants. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/01/2012)

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 16 of 21

10/02/2012 10/03/2012 10/03/2012 10/04/2012 10/05/2012 10/05/2012
10/05/2012
10/12/2012 10/12/2012
10/15/2012 10/15/2012

103 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/02/2012)
104 ORDER granting 103 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier on 10/3/2012. (KC) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
105 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,,,,,,, with Jury Demand by Jason Gant. (Williams, Richard) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
106 ORDER granting 73 Motion to Extend Deadlines (Discovery due by 11/30/2012, Motions due by 12/31/2012); denying 77 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier on 10/4/2012. (KC) (Entered: 10/04/2012)
107 MOTION for Reconsideration of Extension of Deadlines by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
108 MEMORANDUM in Support re 107 MOTION for Reconsideration of Extension of Deadlines filed by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
109 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 107 MOTION for Reconsideration of Extension of Deadlines filed by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit County Defendants' Designation of Expert Witness, # 2 Exhibit Frankenstein's September 21, 2012 Letter, # 3 Exhibit Sandven's September 22, 2012 Letter, # 4 Exhibit Sandven's September 25, 2012 Letter)(Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
110 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 97 MOTION for Summary Judgment Fall River County Defendants filed by All Plaintiffs with attached appendix A. (Sandven, Steven) Modified on 10/15/2012 to add reference to appendix(SLW). (Entered: 10/12/2012)
111 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 97 MOTION for Summary Judgment Fall River County Defendants filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EX 1 2002 Contract, # 2 Exhibit EX 2 2003 Contract, # 3 Exhibit EX 3 2004 Contract, # 4 Exhibit EX 4 2005 Contract, # 5 Exhibit EX 5 2006 Contract, # 6 Exhibit EX 6 2007 Contract, # 7 Exhibit EX 7 2008 Contract, # 8 Exhibit EX 8 2009 Contract, # 9 Exhibit EX 9 2010 Contract, # 10 Exhibit EX 10 2011 Contract, # 11 Exhibit EX 11 2012 Contract, # 12 Exhibit EX 12 2012 Amended 06March12, # 13 Exhibit EX 13 2012 Amended 12March12, # 14 Exhibit EX 14 SwordMemo 21October09, # 15 Exhibit EX 15 SwordMemo 31December09, # 16 Exhibit EX 16 HealyAffidavit, # 17 Exhibit EX 17 ShannonCtyMinutes 03September10, # 18 Exhibit EX 18 LHutchinsonTranscripts)(Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
112 RESPONSE to 91 Motion for Summary Judgment,, Response to Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts filed by All Defendants. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
113 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Jason Gant, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 17 of 21

10/15/2012 10/15/2012 10/16/2012
10/16/2012
10/16/2012 10/17/2012 10/17/2012 10/19/2012 10/19/2012 10/26/2012 10/26/2012 10/29/2012

114 MEMORANDUM in Support re 113 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts filed by All Defendants. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
115 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 91 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Semans Depo, # 2 Exhibit HAVA Reimbursement Forms 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, # 3 Exhibit Nelson Depo, # 4 Exhibit Gant Depo, # 5 Exhibit March 8, 2012 Hearing Transcript, # 6 Exhibit Braunstein Depo)(Frankenstein, Sara) (Attachment 2 replaced on 10/16/2012 to provide better copy) (KKD). (Entered: 10/15/2012)
116 Filed in error: RESPONSE to Motion re 91 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Opposition filed by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Frankenstein, Sara) Modified on 10/17/2012 (SLW). (Entered: 10/16/2012)
NOTICE of Filing Error: Response to Motion, 116 filed by Defendant Joe Falkenbuerg, Defendant Eugenio B. White Hawk, Defendant Michael P. Ortner, Defendant Sue Ganje, Defendant Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Defendant James Sword, Defendant Deloris Hagman, Defendant Joe Allen, Defendant Anne Cassens, Defendant Shannon County, South Dakota, Defendant Deb Russell, Defendant Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Defendant Lyla Hutchison, Defendant Wendell Yellow Bull, Defendant Bryan J. Kehn, Defendant Fall River County, South Dakota FILED IN ERROR (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
117 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 91 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by All Defendants. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
118 Joint MOTION to Dismiss on Ripeness Grounds by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Jason Gant, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
119 MEMORANDUM in Support re 118 Joint MOTION to Dismiss on Ripeness Grounds filed by All Defendants. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
120 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 100 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment All Defendants filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appendix A − State HAVA Plans)(Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
121 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 100 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment All Defendants filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EX 1 ShannonCtyMinutes, # 2 Exhibit EX 2 Shannon County Statistics, # 3 Exhibit EX 3 Clarice Mesteth Affidavit, # 4 Exhibit EX 4 Ed Mesteth Affidavit, # 5 Exhibit EX 5 Monette Two Eagle Affidavit, # 6 Exhibit EX 6 Stacy Two Lance Affidavit, # 7 Exhibit EX 7 Dawn Black Bull Affidavit)(Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
122 MOTION to Extend Deadlines to file reply brief by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
123 REPLY to Motion Response re 97 MOTION for Summary Judgment Fall River County Defendants filed by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, James Sword. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
124 TEXT ORDER granting 122 Motion to Extend Deadlines. Defendants' reply due 11/9/2012. Signed by Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier on 10/29/2012. (KC) (Entered: 10/29/2012)

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 18 of 21

10/29/2012 10/29/2012 10/29/2012 10/29/2012 11/01/2012 11/05/2012
11/07/2012
11/07/2012 11/09/2012 11/09/2012 11/13/2012 11/15/2012 11/15/2012 11/19/2012 11/19/2012 11/26/2012

125 MOTION to Extend Deadlines by Jason Gant. (Williams, Richard) (Entered: 10/29/2012)
126 TEXT ORDER granting 125 Motion to Extend Deadlines. Gant's reply due 11/9/2012. Signed by Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier on 10/29/2012. (KC) (Entered: 10/29/2012)
127 REPLY to Motion Response re 91 MOTION for Summary Judgment PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS JOINT MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 10/29/2012)
128 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 91 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Dawn Black Bull Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 − Clarice Mesteth Affidavit)(Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 10/29/2012)
129 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 118 Joint MOTION to Dismiss on Ripeness Grounds filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
130 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 113 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Proposed Revisions to Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proposed Revisions to Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts)(Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
131 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS re 100 Motion for Summary Judgment, by Defendants Michael P. Ortner, Anne Cassens, Jason Gant, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, Fall River County, South Dakota, Lyla Hutchison, Joe Falkenbuerg, Joe Allen, James Sword, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Wendell Yellow Bull, Bryan J. Kehn, Sue Ganje, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Deb Russell, Deloris Hagman filed by All Defendants. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
132 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 100 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment All Defendants filed by All Defendants. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
133 REPLY to Motion Response re 100 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment All Defendants filed by All Defendants. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
134 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 100 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment All Defendants filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit March 8, 2012 Hearing Transcript Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit (MT case) Order Denying Plfs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction)(Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
135 RESPONSE to Motion re 100 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment All Defendants PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
136 REPLY to Motion Response re 118 Joint MOTION to Dismiss on Ripeness Grounds filed by All Defendants. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
137 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 118 Joint MOTION to Dismiss on Ripeness Grounds filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Excerpts from March 8, 2012 Hearing Transcript, # 2 Exhibit Excerpts from May 3, 2012 Deposition Transcript of Lyla Hutchison)(Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
138 REPLY to Motion Response re 113 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts filed by All Defendants. (Mann, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
139 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 113 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Braunstein Depo.)(Mann, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
140 MOTION to Exclude PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS EXPERT REPORT AND EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS L. BRUNELL by Dawn Black Bull, Chris Brooks, Harry Brown, Sharon Conden, Jacqueline Garnier, Eileen Janis, Elmer Kills Back, Jr, Cecil Little Hawk, Sr, Leona Little Hawk, Loretta

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 19 of 21

11/26/2012 12/17/2012
12/17/2012
12/17/2012
12/28/2012 01/07/2013 03/07/2013 03/07/2013 03/07/2013

Little Hawk, Clarice Mesteth, Edmond Mesteth, Mark A. Mesteth, Linda Red Cloud, Gloria Red Eagle, Jennifer Red Owl, Evan Rencountre, Francis Rencountre, Donovan L. Steele, Faith Two Eagle, Monette Two Eagle, Stacy Two Lance, Edwina Weston, Eleanor Weston, Michelle Weston. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
141 MEMORANDUM in Support re 140 MOTION to Exclude PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS EXPERT REPORT AND EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS L. BRUNELL filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
142 RESPONSE to Motion re 140 MOTION to Exclude PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS EXPERT REPORT AND EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS L. BRUNELL filed by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
143 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 140 MOTION to Exclude PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS EXPERT REPORT AND EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS L. BRUNELL filed by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Reference Guide on Survey Research)(Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
144 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 140 MOTION to Exclude PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS EXPERT REPORT AND EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS L. BRUNELL filed by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Creative Research Systems (on−line tool), # 2 Exhibit B − Expert Report of Thomas Brunell, Ph.D., # 3 Exhibit C − Affidavit of Sue Ganje (Doc. 85 & Data Table Exhibits), # 4 Exhibit D − Curriculum Vitae of Thomas Brunell, Ph.D.)(Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
145 REPLY to 140 Motion to Exclude,, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
146 ORDER denying as moot 107 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on January 7, 2013. (Schreier, Karen) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
147 MOTION IN LIMINE: by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 03/07/2013)
148 MEMORANDUM in Support re 147 MOTION IN LIMINE: filed by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 03/07/2013)
149 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 147 MOTION IN LIMINE: filed by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (2nd Edition − Federal Judicial Center, 2000), # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B − Braunstein Expert

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 20 of 21

03/07/2013 03/07/2013
03/08/2013 03/25/2013 03/25/2013 03/25/2013 04/08/2013
07/30/2013 08/02/2013 08/02/2013 08/06/2013
08/06/2013 08/20/2013

Report, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C − Expert Report of Thomas Brunell, Ph.D., # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D − Affidavit of Dr. Thomas L. Brunell, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E − Excerpts − Richard Braunstein Deposition (full version) 8−27−12, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F − Excerpts − Denzin & Lincoln (Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials), # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G − Excerpts − SOS Chris Nelson Deposition (condensed) 7−16−12, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit H − Gronke Article (Early Voting and Turnout), # 9 Exhibit Exhibit I − McDonald & Popkin (The Myth of the Vanishing Voter), # 10 Exhibit Exhibit J − Neely & Richardson, Jr. (Who is Early Voting− An Individual Level Examination))(Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 03/07/2013)
150 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 147 MOTION IN LIMINE: filed by All Defendants. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 03/07/2013)
151 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 147 MOTION IN LIMINE: filed by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Shannon County Plaintiff General Election Records)(Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 03/07/2013)
152 MOTION for Joinder by Jason Gant. (Williams, Richard) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
153 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 147 MOTION IN LIMINE: filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
154 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 147 MOTION IN LIMINE: Dr. Richard Braunstein filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EX A − 48 S.D. L. Rev. 171 (2003), # 2 Exhibit EX B − 50 S.D. L. Rev. 440, # 3 Exhibit EX C − Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Beharvioral Research)(Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
155 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 147 MOTION IN LIMINE: Steven Sandven filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EX A − Dr. Braunstein Deposition Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit EX B − 2012−2013 American Political Science Review Editorial Board's Vision Statement)(Sandven, Steven) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
156 REPLY to Motion Response re 147 MOTION IN LIMINE: to exclude Plaintiff's expert filed by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
157 SCHEDULING ORDER: Motion Hearing set for 8/2/2013 at 03:00 PM in Sioux Falls Courtroom 2* before U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 7/30/13. (KC) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
158 Motion Hearing held on 8/2/2013 re 118 Joint MOTION to Dismiss on Ripeness Grounds before U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier (Court Reporter Jill Connelly) (SLW) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
Motions Taken Under Advisement: 118 Joint MOTION to Dismiss on Ripeness Grounds (SLW) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
159 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 91 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 96 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 97 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 100 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 113 Motion to Strike ; granting 118 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice; denying as moot 140 Motion to Exclude; denying as moot 147 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 152 Motion for Joinder. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 8/6/13. (KC) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
160 JUDGMENT Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 8/6/13. (KC) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
161 BILL OF COSTS by Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, Fall River County, South Dakota, Sue Ganje, Deloris Hagman, Lyla Hutchison, Bryan J. Kehn, Michael P. Ortner, Deb Russell, Shannon

Case: 5:12-cv-5003 As of: 10/27/2017 12:21 AM CDT 21 of 21

08/29/2013 09/19/2013
01/26/2015 01/26/2015
01/27/2015 01/27/2015 02/03/2015 02/09/2015 04/01/2015

County Board of Commissioners, Shannon County, South Dakota, James Sword, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Wendell Yellow Bull. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bill of Costs)(Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
162 OBJECTION by all Plaintiffs to Defendants' Bill of Costs. (Sandven, Steven) Modified on 8/29/2013 to reflect pleading was filed on behalf of all Plaintiffs (DJP). (Entered: 08/29/2013)
163 ORDER denying 161 Bill of Costs, filed by Joe Falkenbuerg, Eugenio B. White Hawk, Michael P. Ortner, Sue Ganje, Fall River County Board of Commissioners, James Sword, Deloris Hagman, Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Shannon County, South Dakota, Deb Russell, Shannon County Board of Commissioners, Lyla Hutchison, Wendell Yellow Bull, Bryan J. Kehn, Fall River County, South Dakota. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 9/19/2013. (KC) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
164 Letter sent to Richard M. Williams and Sara Frankenstein re: Return of Exhibits. (SLT) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
165 Letter sent to Steven Daniel Sandven re: Return of Exhibits. (SLT) Returned as undeliverable. Resent on 2/17/2015 (SLT). Modified on 4/1/2015 Returned undeliverable again. Spoke with assistant at Law office and Orally indicated that the exhibits could be destroyed. (SLT). (Entered: 01/26/2015)
166 Letter to Court. (Frankenstein, Sara) (Entered: 01/27/2015)
167 Letter. (Williams, Richard) (Entered: 01/27/2015)
168 RECEIPT for Return of Exhibits by Sara Frankenstein on behalf of Joe Allen, Anne Cassens, Joe Falkenbuerg re 64 Motion Hearing. Exhibits Returned: Exhibits A − D. (KKD) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
169 RECEIPT for Return of Exhibits by Richard M. Williams on behalf of Jason Gant re 64 Motion Hearing, Exhibits Returned: 105−106 (KLK) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
Remark: Exhibits P1 − P11, & P13 re: 64 Motion Hearing destroyed per conversation with Steven Sandven's Assistant and no response to 165 within 28 days. (SLT) (Entered: 04/01/2015)