The question right now seems to be, if the tribes rushed to define addresses in the reservation and issue documents containing them over the next two weeks (good luck), will the state accept those? It would seem so from the letter of the law.
I’m a bit disappointed that I haven’t seen anyone in the thread debate the actual decision under discussion. Things like what is at issue before the court actually matter.
The law in question was not at issue before the 8th Circuit or the Supreme Court. So anyone arguing about the underlying law while discussing the action of the Supreme Court, or the 8th Circuit, is arguing about something that hasn’t happened yet.
The North Dakota Legislature passed a law that, inter alia, requires North Dakota residents to prove they are, indeed, North Dakota residents entitled to vote at the precinct to which they show up on election day (North Dakota residents do not have to register in advance). They can accomplish this by showing either a ND drivers’ license/ID card or a tribal ID card. If they show one of these things, but it lacks their actual residential street address, they can provide certain supplemental documents showing that missing information.
Six plaintiffs who are members of tribes and who reside in ND filed suit to block the implementation of the law. The legal trail here has been quite tortured, with a prior injunction, a modification of the law, and a subsequent injunction. The most recent injunction included a requirement instituted by the District Court that the state of North Dakota allow any resident of North Dakota to submit ID showing either a street address or a mailing address from within the precinct. The Secretary of State appealed to have the injunction struck down, and moved for a stay of the specific provision that the state accept mailing addresses. It was this motion for a stay that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals addressed.
See: Brakebill v. Jaeger, No. 18-1725 Warning: PDF
In granting the requested stay, the 8th Circuit noted simply that, whatever the merit of the requested remedy with regards to the plaintiffs might be, there was simply no good reason that it should be applied to every resident of the state of North Dakota. The claim that many Native Americans in North Dakota don’t have valid street addresses might support an injunction directing that they be allowed to supplement the record with mailing addresses; it certainly does not support an injunction that allows anyone in the state to do so. Since mailing addresses don’t have to be obtained in the same precinct in which one lives, it’s quite possible to end up using mailing addresses to vote in contests to which one would otherwise not be a valid elector. In short, the injunction granted was over-broad, and, thus struck down.
It’s no shock that the Supreme Court only managed to have two justices argue in favor of granting the requested emergency action. The 8th Circuit is on solid ground here. They did not, and have not offered any legal action with regard to the underlying issue of whether or not the law itself is constitutional. And, thus, all of you who have been arguing that underlying point on the assumption that the courts have in any way approved that law are arguing from a false assumption.
Correct me if I’m wrong, DSY, but you seem to be rebuking us for not wrestling with the arguments themselves, but with their real-world consequences.
And yet, AFAICT, this was the status quo, prior to the new ND voter ID law.
However solid the legal ground under the 8th circuit decision, ISTM that the district court’s injunction restored a situation that worked just fine for decades, until a Democrat won a race for U.S. Senate in a state where the Republicans controlled the state government.
I know we can’t just throw out the law, wholesale. But OTOH to the extent that it turns into some abstract game that doesn’t seem to take reality into account even as it runs roughshod over it, it loses legitimacy.
Well, I was assuming that those other documents (utility bills, checks, etc) would also NOT have a residential address, and would instead be sent to the same P.O. Box that is no longer allowed.
Is my assumption wrong?
According to what I just heard, they have a plan. They will put up a map of the reservation and give street names to the various streets, roads etc. The prospective voter will point out where he lives, and will be assigned a unique street address corresponding. He or she will then be given a letter on tribal government letterhead addressed to themselves at that address. Said address will be added to the previously grievously inadequate tribal ID, and, viola! legal ID to vote.
We are given to understand that the legality of this maneuver may depend on the interpretation of tribal sovereignty a given court chooses to believe. There is a rare irony in invoking tribal sovereignty to secure voting rights for the most American people evah!
Question remaining is how heavy handed the Republicans will be in their eagerness to crush this impudence. Hard to believe they won’t, but I’m gonna try.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re asserting here. Prior to there being a voter ID requirement, there was no requirement you show identification at all. You simply went to the appropriate precinct for where you lived and voted. Is that not correct?
Now, after the 8th Circuit’s quashing of the injunction, you have to show ID, with a residential address, or ID plus something else that shows your residential address. How is that the status quo ante? But the injunction allowed you to go to a DIFFERENT address if you wanted, based upon a PO Box, and vote there. So the injunction did not establish status quo ante either, did it?
But my main point was that a fair amount of the discussion here seemed to me to assume that the question of the legality/constitutionality had already been decided.
This seems pretty nice. Do you have a link where you heard this?
I was on MSNBC, just killing some time while the commercials for catheters was on Fox. It was a sprightly young lady named Raquel Meadow(?). She had a tribal honcho outlining the plan, but so far the Forces of Darkness have yet to respond.
That’s how partisan you are. You’re so loyal to your brand of catheter that you can’t even stand to watch commercials from their competitors. Sad.
The bolded is not particularly accurate.
It varies, it wanes…a crap ton of natives live in Alaska, Oklahoma, Arizona. There are native Republican congressmen…etc…etc…
I would just posit overwhemingly isnt accurate.
As it pertains to North Dakota, pretty much accurate. Both Dems and Pubbies see that as the reason why there is a Dem Senator from a state redder than a baboon’s ass. The Republicans of ND would cut out Mitt Romney’s heart on an altar to Moloch to get that seat back.
No, I’m saying that the injunction that the 8th circuit quashed was basically the status quo ante.
How is that different from “You simply went to the appropriate precinct for where you lived and voted,” given that you apparently could have used a PO box back then too?
What’s legal for the upcoming election has already been decided, yes.
You never followed up with the board of elections, so you don’t know how that played out, so “definitely” is a bit of a guess on your part.
In Ohio, they do track your ballot, so if they were able to decide that you were the valid voter, and not the person who voted in your name, then they would have actually pulled the fraudulent ballot, and replaced it with yours.
And, that is the reason for provisional ballot, for when something unexpected occurs. I had to vote provisionally once because my address has 5 digits, and when I registered to vote, appratanly, they didn’t believe me, and truncated it to 4. Meaning that when I went to vote, the ID on my address and the address they had didn’t match.
Provisional ballots are for the exceptions, not for the rules. Voting should be set up so that it is used as infrequently as possible.
When the relief for a legislative action is “just vote provisionally” that is not having a system to deal with problems that crop up, that is creating problems that will overwhelm the system.
You are misunderstanding the problem entirely. The problem is people who DO have jobs, and paychecks and utility bills and bank accounts and checks from the tribe and tribal ID and BIA paperwork, all of it showing the address at which they receive mail (PO Box 2, or HCR 3 Box 12, or whatever), because their actual residence either has no street address assigned or they have not been informed of what the address is. Showing up with a whole stack of documentation with a mailing address rather than a street address means your vote won’t count. (You can vote provisionally, but the provisional ballot won’t count unless you can furnish documentation of your street address before the canvass.)
Now, assume you can actually get an address assigned to your house today. The post office still doesn’t know about your street address and doesn’t deliver mail there, so getting your bank account mailing address changed to the street won’t help you (even assuming you are going to receive a printed bank statement between now and Nov. 6). Have you seen bank statements that bear both a physical and mailing address on them?
How do you know that the voter fraud “would have been stopped” with voter ID? Even if your state had required it, somebody bent on committing voter fraud by impersonating you could have obtained fake ID, and given that election workers are mostly older, mostly volunteers, and mostly untrained in detecting fake documents, what assurance do you have that the worker would have noticed?
Heck, even the people at the liquor stores not infrequently have a book of what real IDs are supposed to look like; in my years as a poll worker, I’ve never seen one, and have received zero training. My state explicitly allows elderly voters to use expired IDs: what do you suppose is the accuracy rate of judging whether this person in front of me sufficiently resembles a 25-year-old, one-inch-square photo that probably didn’t look all that much like them when it was new? I am required to accept “a student identification card issued by an accredited postsecondary institution of education in the state of Kansas”; what does a valid student ID from Barclay College in Haviland (enrollment ~230) look like? is St. Mary of the Plains College still operating in Dodge City? (No.) An identification card issued by a tribe (any tribe) is valid ID–I sort of know what the closest tribe’s ID looks like, but could not be absolutely certain, and if they showed ID from a more distant tribe I’d have no chance (AND nobody on my local board would have any better idea, so the only real option is handing the voter a provisional ballot).
Such a system puts barriers in the way of honest people who are trying to follow the law; it is merely a minor inconvenience for somebody who is actually bent on fraud. “Making it tougher on real voters while doing nothing effective against the fraudsters” serves what purpose, exactly?
For that matter, if you really wanted to commit fraud, in a busy polling place it would not be that difficult for a bent poll worker to lie about whether they’d checked ID, or otherwise fudge the totals. There were more than 900,000 poll workers during the 2016 general election; assuming they are all absolutely honest may not be the choice of the smart money. Voter ID might affect a single ballot; a bent election worker might affect hundreds.
Yes, I’m kind of disappointed that when this problem was pointed out, there was no further reply from Shodan. I was interested in what reply would be given.