[ad_1]
A federal judge on Thursday rejected a last-ditch attempt to block North Dakota’s requirement that voters have a residential address.
The judge, Daniel L. Hovland of the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, wrote in a brief, two-page order that it was simply too close to Election Day to do so. He noted that “federal courts are unanimous in their judgment that it is highly important to preserve the status quo when elections are fast approaching.”
His order was in response to a lawsuit that the Campaign Legal Center and the Native American Rights Fund filed Tuesday on behalf of the Spirit Lake Tribe and six individuals. The suit described mass confusion and bureaucratic obstacles as Native Americans tried to obtain the addresses and corresponding identification now required.
North Dakota officials maintain that any voter without a residential address can obtain one easily from their county’s 911 coordinator. But the lawsuit identified multiple instances in which people were unable to obtain an address through that process; obtained one but were denied an absentee ballot because election officials deemed the state-issued address invalid; or were denied an absentee ballot because the address they had used for years could not be found in the state’s database.
Judge Hovland has been sympathetic to the tribes’ arguments in the past and in fact blocked the law’s enforcement earlier this year, ruling that it unconstitutionally discriminated against Native Americans, who often don’t use addresses on their reservations. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that injunction in late September, in a decision quickly upheld by the Supreme Court.
In its ruling allowing the requirement to take effect, the appeals court wrote that opponents had not identified any instance in which a North Dakotan was actually disenfranchised as a result of the requirement. If a voter were so disenfranchised, it wrote, “the courthouse doors remain open.” The latest lawsuit was essentially a response to that invitation.
Judge Hovland, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002, again indicated that he found the tribes’ arguments compelling. He wrote on Thursday that the allegations gave him “great cause for concern” and would “require a detailed response from the secretary of state as this case proceeds.” But he concluded that halting the law’s enforcement now, with the election five days away and early voting in progress, would “create as much confusion as it will alleviate.”
Mark Gaber, senior legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, said he and the other lawyers were reviewing their options. He emphasized that Judge Hovland’s order concerned only the request to block the law before the election, and had no bearing on the ultimate outcome of the challenge to the law’s constitutionality.
Mr. Gaber urged Native Americans to go to the polls on Tuesday and, if turned away for lack of identification, to demand a provisional ballot. The Campaign Legal Center and other groups could then ask the courts to order that the provisional ballots be counted.
“The court’s concern was with creating confusion before the election,” he said. “Those same concerns don’t apply after the election is over.”
Source link
