By Libby Skarin, Policy Director
Amendment T, a measure that would change the way South Dakota draws its legislative districts, will be on the ballot in November 2016.
The concept is pretty simple: the Amendment would create a balanced 9 member commission charged with drawing legislative districts every 10 years. Unlike the current system, it would encourage districts to be drawn with roughly equal population and require that counties and neighborhoods be kept in the same district where possible. It would remove the legislature’s authority to draw these districts (and therefore remove some of the bitter partisanship that often accompanies these efforts). Essentially, it would make the system more fair and less susceptible to bias or discrimination.
That all sounded great to me, but there was something stuck in my mind about redistricting efforts that I couldn’t quite articulate. To figure out what was bothering me, I did what I typically do when searching for answers – turn to research.
I unearthed a 2009 ACLU report focused on voting rights in Indian Country and after reading it I realized what the voice in the back of my head was saying: Amendment T isn’t just important because it would make district-drawing in South Dakota fairer. It’s crucial because South Dakota – to put it frankly – has a deeply ugly history of trying to dilute the vote of Native Americans through its district drawing plans.
Here’s a sample of what I found:
- South Dakota denied Native Americans the right to vote and hold office until the 1940s.
- As late as 1975, South Dakota prohibited Native Americans from voting in elections in counties that were “unorganized” under state law. Those three counties – whose residents were overwhelmingly Native American – were Shannon [known today as Oglala Lakota County], Todd, and Washabaugh [which merged into today’s Jackson County]. The state prohibited residents of these counties from holding county office until as recently as 1980.
- In 2001, the ACLU sued South Dakota for failing to follow federal law in crafting its redistricting plan. A trial court in SD concluded (in striking down the state’s redistricting plan) that “the long history of discrimination against Indians has wrongfully denied Indians an equal opportunity to get involved in the political process.” The court found that there was “substantial evidence that South Dakota officially excluded Indians from voting and holding office.”
- In 2003, the ACLU filed suit in Buffalo County, SD. The county was enforcing a decades-old plan for electing its three-member county commission. Though 83% of the county’s population is Native American, the district drawing plan packed nearly all Native Americans – 1,500 people in a county of 2,000 inhabitants – into one district. Though whites made up only 17% of the population, they controlled the remaining two districts, and thus controlled the county government. The system was clearly implemented and maintained to dilute the Indian vote and ensure white control of county government. In settling the case, the county admitted its plan was discriminatory and agreed to submit its future plans to federal supervision.
- In 2005, the ACLU filed suit against Charles Mix County on behalf of four members of the Yankton Sioux Tribe, alleging that three districts for county commission were drawn in a way that diluted the voting strength of Native Americans.
All of these examples of South Dakota governments attempting to dilute the strength of Native American voters are troubling. Perhaps even more troubling is how recent these cases are. Since 2000, there have been numerous court battles alleging district-drawing in South Dakota has been unfair and done in a way that specifically – and perhaps intentionally – harms Native American South Dakotans.
Amendment T would remove bias from the equation and create a system in which it would be nearly impossible for prejudice to play a role in the way state legislative districts are drawn. This benefits South Dakotans who have historically been disenfranchised as well as those who haven’t. To put it simply, Amendment T would strengthen our democracy by making our statewide system one that truly represents every individual voter.