CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/26/2023 1

Voter-Identification Challenge 

for Native Americans 

Without Recognized Residential Street Addresses 

Spirit Lake Tribe v. Jaeger 

(Daniel L. Hovland, D.N.D. 1:18-cv-222) 

Although acknowledging that the plaintiffs’ claims were not without merit, a district judge denied immediate relief in a 2018 suit 

challenging the application of a voter-identification requirement to 

residents of Indian reservations. The plaintiffs claimed that Native 

American voters often did not have recognized residential street 

addresses. But the complaint was filed only one week before the 

election. The case, and a related 2016 case, were resolved by a consent decree in 2020 that recognized tribal identification documents. 

Subject: Voter identification. Topics: Voter identification; 

laches; interlocutory appeal; attorney fees. 

North Dakota has no voter registration requirement, so a resident may 

appear at the polls on election day and cast a ballot without any previous 

expression of desire to vote. Election officials at the polls are charged with 

determining whether a person who appears is qualified to vote. Before 2013, 

voters could establish their qualifications by using certain forms of identification. If a voter could not present proper identification, the voter was 

nonetheless permitted to cast a ballot after swearing an affidavit or upon 

vouching by a poll worker.1

An American Indian tribe and six members of American Indian tribes 

filed a federal complaint in the District of North Dakota one week before the 

2018 general election to challenge a state requirement that voters show identification proving current residential addresses.2

Many streets on the Spirit Lake Reservation do not have marked signs 

on them and many houses are not labeled with numbers. On parts of the 

Reservation, the residences do not have street addresses assigned. Many 

members who do have street addresses assigned by 911 do not know their 

address and have not been notified of their address. On parts of the Reservation, mail service does not exist and members often rely upon P.O. boxes 

to receive mail.3

On the next day, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.4

1. Brakebill v. Jaeger, 932 F.3d 671, 674 (8th Cir. 2019). 

2. Complaint, Spirit Lake Tribe v. Jaeger, No. 1:18-cv-222 (D.N.D. Oct. 30, 2018), D.E. 1. 

3. Id. at 4–5. 

4. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, id. (Oct. 31, 2018), D.E. 8; see Amy Dalrymple, 

Court Case Seeks Relief for Native Voters in N.D., Bismarck Trib., Nov. 1, 2018, at A1. 
Voter-Identification Challenge 

for Native Americans Without Recognized Residential Street Addresses 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/26/2023 

An Earlier Stayed Injunction 

The case was filed after the court of appeals stayed, on September 24, an injunction issued in a 2016 case.5

In its order granting injunctive relief, the district court highlighted its 

concern that under current state law, a resident who does not have a ‘‘current residential street address’’ will never be qualified to vote. No plaintiff in 

this case falls in that category. If any resident of North Dakota lacks a current residential street address and is denied an opportunity to vote on that 

basis, the courthouse doors remain open.6

The earlier case began with a January 20, 2016, federal complaint in the 

District of North Dakota filed by seven Native American voters challenging 

recently enacted voter-identification laws.7 Judge Daniel L. Hovland issued a 

preliminary injunction on August 1.8

Until recently, North Dakota used a system of small voting precincts, 

whereby election boards and poll workers generally knew who were and 

who were not eligible voters in their precincts. If a poll clerk happened not 

to know a voter, they could ask that voter to produce one of many forms of 

an acceptable identification (“ID”) showing the voter’s residential address 

and birthday.9

As a fail-safe, “the voter could execute an affidavit swearing under penalty of 

perjury that he or she was a qualified elector in the precinct.”10 Subsequent 

legislation tightened voter-identification options and removed the fail-safe 

provision.11 Judge Hovland’s injunction prohibited North Dakota from enforcing its voter-identification requirements without an adequate fail-safe 

provision.12

5. Brakebill v. Jaeger, 905 F.3d 553 (8th Cir. 2018); see Second Preliminary Injunction, 

Brakebill v. Jaeger, No. 1:16-cv-8 (D.N.D. Apr. 3, 2018), D.E. 99 [hereinafter Second Brakebill Preliminary Injunction], 2018 WL 1612190. 

6. Brakebill, 905 F.3d at 561. 

7. Complaint, Brakebill, No. 1:16-cv-8 (D.N.D. Jan. 20, 2016), D.E. 1; Spirit Lake Tribe v. 

Jaeger, 5 F.4th 848, 852 (8th Cir. 2021); see Amended Complaint, Brakebill, No. 1:16-cv-8 

(D.N.D. Dec. 27, 2017), D.E. 77; see also James MacPherson, Tribal Members Sue N.D. Over 

Voter ID, Bismarck Trib., Jan. 22, 2016, at A1. 

8. First Preliminary Injunction, Brakebill, No. 1:16-cv-8 (D.N.D. Aug. 1, 2016), D.E. 50 

[hereinafter First Brakebill Preliminary Injunction], 2016 WL 7118548; Spirit Lake Tribe, 5 

F.4th at 852; see Robert Barnes, Judge Rules N. Dakota’s Voter-ID Law Unfair to Native 

Americans, Wash. Post, Aug. 2, 2016, at A15; John Hageman, N.D. Preps for Election After 

Ruling on Voter ID, Bismarck Trib., Aug. 14, 2016, at A1; Mike Nowatzki, Judge Blocks Elector ID Law, Bismarck Trib., Aug. 2, 2016, at A1. 

“North Dakota’s secretary of state, Alvin Jaeger, indicated in an interview that the state 

would not appeal the decision and that November’s election would revert to using less restrictive identification rules that were in force before the 2013 law was enacted.” Michael 

Wines, Judge Blocks North Dakota’s Voter ID Law, N.Y. Times, Aug. 2, 2016, at A16. 

9. First Brakebill Preliminary Injunction, supra note 8, at 2. 

10. Id.

11. Id. at 3–4. 

12. Id. at 28–29; Spirit Lake Tribe, 5 F.4th at 852. 
Voter-Identification Challenge 

for Native Americans Without Recognized Residential Street Addresses 

Federal Judicial Center 10/26/2023 3

Legislation following Judge Hovland’s injunction provided for the setaside of a ballot cast by a voter without sufficient identification so that the 

voter could return with identification before the meeting of the canvassing 

board six days after the election.13

On April 3, 2018, Judge Hovland concluded, “The current law completely 

disenfranchises anyone who does not have a ‘current residential street address.’”14 He determined that “the Secretary of State shall allow a qualified 

voter to receive a ballot if they provide . . . identification that includes either a 

‘current residential street address’ or a current mailing address (P.O. Box or 

other address) in North Dakota.”15

On September 24, the court of appeals, by a vote of two to one, stayed as 

too broad the injunction’s allowance of a mailing address as proof of eligibility to vote.16 “[A]ssuming that some communities lack residential street addresses, that fact does not justify a statewide injunction that prevents the Secretary from requiring a form of identification with a residential street address 

from the vast majority of residents who have residential street addresses.”17

Over a dissent by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, the Supreme Court declined 

on October 9 to vacate the stay.18

No Injunction for the Spirit Lake Tribe 

Because of how close the complaint was filed before the election, Judge 

Hovland denied the Spirit Lake Tribe and the other plaintiffs in the new case 

immediate relief on Thursday, November 1.19

In this case, early voting has already begun. Election day is less than one 

week away. The allegations in the complaint, the motion for a temporary restraining order, and the attached affidavits give this Court great cause for 

concern. The allegations will require a detailed response from the Secretary 

of State as this case proceeds. The litany of problems identified in this new 

lawsuit were clearly predictable and certain to occur as the Court noted in 

its previous orders . . . . However, a further injunction on the eve of the election will create as much confusion as it will alleviate, and is foreclosed by 

precedent which is hesitant to permit eleventh-hour changes to election 

laws.20

13. Second Brakebill Preliminary Injunction, supra note 5; Spirit Lake Tribe, 5 F.4th at 

852. 

14. Second Brakebill Preliminary Injunction, supra note 5, at 13 (citation omitted). 

15. Id. at 15; see Spirit Lake Tribe, 5 F.4th at 852. 

16. Brakebill v. Jaeger, 905 F.3d 553, 561 (8th Cir. 2018); Brakebill v. Jaeger, 932 F.3d 671, 

676 (8th Cir. 2019); see John Hageman, Appeals Court Ruling a Setback, Bismarck Trib., 

Sept. 25, 2018, at B1.

17. Brakebill, 905 F.3d at 558; see Brakebill, 932 F.3d at 678 (coming to the same conclusion when finally resolving the appeal). 

18. Brakebill v. Jaeger, 586 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 10 (2018). 

19. Opinion, Spirit Lake Tribe v. Jaeger, No. 1:18-cv-222 (D.N.D. Nov. 1, 2018), D.E. 33 

[hereinafter Spirit Lake Tribe Injunction Denial Opinion], 2018 WL 5722665; see Amy Dalrymple, Judge Denies Emergency Motion, Bismarck Trib., Nov. 2, 2018, at A1. 

20. Spirit Lake Tribe Injunction Denial Opinion, supra note 19, at 2 (quotation marks 

omitted). 
Voter-Identification Challenge 

for Native Americans Without Recognized Residential Street Addresses 

4 Federal Judicial Center 10/26/2023 

On November 2, Judge Hovland adopted a negotiated stipulation by the 

parties confirming the individual plaintiffs’ eligibility to vote in the November 6 general election.21 An amended complaint included a second tribe as a 

plaintiff.22 On June 17, 2019, Judge Hovland struck from the amended complaint incorporations by reference to the other case’s complaint.23

Resolution of the Earlier Appeal 

With the same vote as issued the stay in 2018, the court of appeals vacated 

Judge Hovland’s stayed injunction on July 31, 2019.24

The district court in this case enjoined entirely the statutory requirements 

concerning a residential street address, valid form of identification, and 

supplemental documents. If the court had rejected the request for statewide 

injunctive relief and required the plaintiffs to proceed with as-applied challenges based on their individual circumstances, then there may well have 

been time before the most recent election to consider whether narrower relief was justified.25

Settlement 

On February 10, 2020, Judge Hovland denied a motion to dismiss a second 

amended complaint in the 2018 case.26 A settlement awaited tribal council 

approval.27

In this year’s elections, Native American voters will be allowed to mark 

their homes on a map, and it will be the state’s responsibility to use that information to verify their official addresses and make sure their ballots are 

counted. The state will also be required to provide the official addresses to 

the voters and their tribes, which could then issue tribal identification for 

use in future elections. 

This formalizes an arrangement that some tribes used in the 2018 midterms, when a federal court allowed the voter ID law to take effect less than 

two months before Election Day. Tribal officials were stationed at polling 

places on reservations to issue handwritten identification on the spot, using 

ad hoc addresses, to voters who pointed out their homes on a map.28

21. Order, Spirit Lake Tribe, No. 1:18-cv-222 (D.N.D. Nov. 2, 2018), D.E. 35; see Stipulation, id. (Nov. 2, 2018), D.E. 34; see also Amy Dalrymple, ID Law Challengers Allowed to 

Vote, Bismarck Trib., Nov. 3, 2018, at B1. 

22. Amended Complaint, Spirit Lake Tribe, No. 1:18-cv-222 (D.N.D. Feb. 28, 2019), D.E. 

43; see Blake Nicholson, Tribe Joins in Challenge, Bismarck Trib., Mar. 6, 2019, at B2. 

23. Opinion, Spirit Lake Tribe, No. 1:18-cv-222 (D.N.D. June 17, 2019), D.E. 50. 

24. Brakebill v. Jaeger, 932 F.3d 671 (8th Cir. 2019); Spirit Lake Tribe v. Jaeger, 5 F.4th 

848, 852 (8th Cir. 2021). 

25. Brakebill, 932 F.3d at 680–81. 

26. Opinion, Spirit Lake Tribe, No. 1:18-cv-222 (D.N.D. Feb. 10, 2020), D.E. 79, 2020 WL 

625279; see Second Amended Complaint, id. (June 20, 2019), D.E. 51. 

27. See Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Second Amended Complaint, id. (Feb. 

19, 2020), D.E. 83 (“The parties are currently in the process of preparing and negotiating 

final settlement documents.”); see also Maggie Astor, Voting Rights Victory for N. Dakota 

Tribes, N.Y. Times, Feb. 14, 2020, at A16. 

28. Astor, supra note 27. 
Voter-Identification Challenge 

for Native Americans Without Recognized Residential Street Addresses 

Federal Judicial Center 10/26/2023 5

On April 24, Judge Hovland consolidated the 2016 case and the 2018 case 

for purposes of an April 27 consent decree.29 Among the provisions of the 

decree were the following: 

6. The Secretary of State shall recognize tribal IDs and supplemental 

documentation issued to tribal members and to non-member residents who 

are qualified electors living within the Tribal Government’s jurisdiction. 

7. The designation by a Tribal Government of a voter’s current residential street address within the Tribal Government’s jurisdiction is valid and 

conclusive for purposes of voting.30

On May 7, Judge Hovland awarded the plaintiffs in the 2016 case 

$452,983.76 in attorney fees.31 The court of appeals affirmed the award on 

July 16, 2021.32

29. Consent Decree, Spirit Lake Tribe, No. 1:18-cv-222 (D.N.D. Apr. 27, 2020), D.E. 97 

[hereinafter Spirit Lake Tribe Consent Decree]; Order, id. (D.N.D. Apr. 24, 2020), D.E. 95;

Spirit Lake Tribe, 5 F.4th at 852. 

30. Spirit Lake Tribe Consent Decree, supra note 29. 

31. Order, Spirit Lake Tribe, No. 1:18-cv-222 (D.N.D. May 6, 2020), D.E. 98; Spirit Lake 

Tribe, 5 F.4th at 852–53. 

32. Spirit Lake Tribe, 5 F.4th 849; see Satisfaction of Judgment, Spirit Lake Tribe, No. 

1:18-cv-222 (D.N.D. Sept. 21, 2021), D.E. 108 (acknowledging payment of $453,867.95, 

which included $884.19 in interest).