ACLU loses voting-rights challenge

By Kevin Woster, Journal Staff Writer | Friday, March 25, 2005

Previous Page

Share

• del.icio.us
• Digg
• NewsVine
• Fark

Print

Email

The city of Martin has won the first round in a federal lawsuit filed in 2002 by the American Civil Liberties Union accusing city officials of discriminating against American Indians in the way they formed voting-district boundaries.

But an ACLU lawyer promised that there would be a second round.

In a decision issued Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Karen Schreier of Rapid City ruled that the ACLU, which represents two Indian plaintiffs in the case, had failed to prove discriminatory intent or effect by the city council in approving a new redistricting plan in March of 2002.

Schreier wrote in her decision that there was no evidence that the contracting organization which drafted the district plan had focused on the ethnic makeup of voters. Nor were there any statements, minutes or reports indicating that the Martin City Council acted with a "racially discriminatory intent" when it enacted an ordinance that included the new districts, Schreier wrote.

Martin Mayor Bill Kuxhaus praised the decision in a news release sent to media outlets.

"I am very pleased the district court recognized that no voting-rights violation is occurring here," Kuxhaus said. "We take great care to ensure that all people of our community are fairly represented and can attain office if they desire."

Along with her ruling in favor of the city, Schreier also ordered that the plaintiffs pay the city's costs in defending the lawsuit.

But there's more legal action to come. Bryan Sells, a lawyer for the ACLU's Voting Rights Project in Atlanta said Friday that the organization was filing a notice to appeal Schreier's ruling to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sells disputed Kuxhaus' assertion that Schreier's ruling confirmed the city's position that no voting-rights violations had occurred. It truth, the ruling merely said that the plaintiffs hadn't proven that to the satisfaction of the court, Sells said.

"The decision in no way vindicates the city of Martin," Sells said. "The decision is that we didn't produce enough evidence. We think we did, and we think that will be vindicated on appeal."

In representing Pearl Cottier and Rebecca Three Stars, two Oglala Sioux Tribe members who live in Martin, the ACLU contends that the 2002 redistricting plan approved by the city council for Martin fragments the Indian population in a way that reduces the chance the Indian voters electing their preferred candidate.

Martin is a city of 1,078 people, according to the 2000 census. Almost 45 percent of the overall population and 36 percent of the voting-age population is Indian. The city is divided into three voting wards, with Indians representing 38.14 percent, 36.29 percent and 34.09 percent, respectively, of the voting-age population in each district.

ACLU maintains that the wards dilute the voting strength of Indian people and suggested alternative redistricting plans that would offer Indian voters a greater chance of electing their preferred candidate.

Kuxhaus said the voting wards approved in 2002 were balanced and fair to Indian people.

Sells said Indian voters have a voter-rights case that will be revived on appeal.

"I sure hope this doesn't discourage Indian voters in Martin or elsewhere in the short term," he said. "Because this is a long struggle. Certainly, Indians in South Dakota have been struggling for a long time. And I think at the end of the day, we're on the right side."

Contact Kevin Woster at 394-8413 or kevin.woster@rapidcityjournal.com