PIERRE, S.D. – The South Dakota Legislature must make a decision to open a
special legislative session to redraw voting district lines to comply with
a federal court order.

The state is in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as ruled by
U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier, and has been instructed to redraw its
district lines. District 27 was found to be packed with American Indian
voters thus allowing only one Senate seat and one legislative seat.

District 27 covers most of the Pine Ridge Reservation; and District 26,
which lies on the edge of the reservation, has some American Indian
population. The lawsuit, filed a year ago, claimed the state packed
District 27 and did not allow American Indian voters in District 26 an
opportunity to elect a candidate of choice.

If the lines were redrawn and a simple majority of American Indian voters
were the result in two districts, it could allow for an additional American
Indian legislator.

Schreier’s original ruling gave the Legislature time to submit a plan of
action. The Legislature and the state attorney general were reluctant to
redraw lines of the districts, citing the state constitution and legal
precedence as reasons. The constitution disallows changes to voting
district boundaries other than following the decennial census.

The state Supreme Court stated, however, that because a federal court found
the state to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act, it was appropriate
to redraw the lines at any time.

The Legislature has until July 30 to submit a new plan for legislative
districts 26 and 27, or the federal court will impose new district lines.

State Attorney General Larry Long said: “I think a special session in
inevitable. The Legislature can’t act unless in session.

“If we submit a plan and the [American Civil Liberties Union] and the judge
agree on ours, they will accept. If we submit a plan the ACLU doesn’t like,
the ball is back in Schreier’s court. There is a fair amount of dynamics to
work out,” Long said.

Long said the state contends that if the lines are redrawn as was
suggested, there would be a simple majority of American Indian voters in
each district; but given the past history of voter turnout by American
Indians, he said, it would be unlikely that their preferred candidate would
be elected.

The past two election cycles have ended with a higher number of American
Indian voters than historical records indicate because of an aggressive Get
Out The Vote campaign on the reservations.

“The Legislature has now been given the opportunity to do right by South
Dakota’s Native American citizens. The ACLU is going to continue to monitor
the situation to ensure that Native American voters have an equal
opportunity to elect candidates of their choice,” said Jennifer Ring,
executive director of the ACLU of the Dakotas.

To accomplish what the federal court ordered, the Legislature must provide
relief to the American Indian voters that would give them a chance to elect
at least one additional legislator.

An appeal of the state Supreme Court opinion is premature, Long said, but
it had been discussed. He added that the federal court order must be
completed before any appeal could be filed. That means Schreier’s order
must be fulfilled, regardless of whether the new boundaries are accepted.

Long did not say whether the state would actually appeal any decision. Ring
said it was possible that if an appeal is filed, the next election cycle
would be held with redrawn districts. The state could also ask for an
injunction that would keep the districts intact until all the litigation is
completed.

Legislative leaders now have the task of determining if it wants a special
session. Republican Ed Olson, chairman of the Legislative Executive Board,
a non-partisan body of the Legislature, said he would set up meetings with
the leadership to determine the next step in the process.

In Schreier’s order, the Legislature was to conduct hearings and begin the
process of creating a new plan while the state’s high court considered the
question. The Legislature did not hold any hearings. It was determined by
the leadership that a ruling on the state constitution was needed first.