By: Mary Steurer
WASHINGTON (North Dakota Monitor) – The state of North Dakota urged the U.S. Supreme Court to let it use its preferred legislative district map after an appellate court found a federal judge was wrong to change the district lines last year.
Attorneys for the state argued that courts have allowed private plaintiffs to challenge and destabilize state district maps for too long.
“Redistricting in a world where well-funded private plaintiffs can induce federal courts to strike down state maps based on theories like those that were asserted in this case becomes nearly impossible,” the state wrote in a Tuesday filing.
North Dakota’s request concerns a lawsuit brought by the Spirit Lake Nation, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa and three tribal citizens that claims a redistricting plan adopted by the North Dakota Legislature in 2021 violates the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Native American voters. The state denies these allegations.
A federal court judge sided with the plaintiffs in 2023 and ordered the state to change its district lines, putting the Spirit Lake and Turtle Mountain reservations into the same district. However, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in May declared that finding invalid on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place.
Barring a reversal from the U.S. Supreme Court, the 8th Circuit’s decision would allow North Dakota to revert back to the map approved by state lawmakers in 2021.
The tribes intend to petition the high court to review the case in the coming months. It remains to be seen which district map will be in place while their request is being considered.
The plaintiffs have filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to order that the current map — imposed by U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte in 2024 — remain for the time being.
The plaintiffs argued that allowing North Dakota’s 2021 map to go back into effect would harm Native American voters as well as potentially unseat three lawmakers. Under the old map, those three lawmakers would no longer live in the districts they serve, which could warrant their removal from office, attorneys for the Legislature have said.
The state in a Tuesday brief disputed this interpretation. It said the Legislature’s attorneys were merely throwing out hypotheticals and did not indicate there is a high probability that the lawmakers would be unseated if the 2021 district lines are reinstated.
The high court last week issued an administrative stay that temporarily prevents the map from changing while the justices consider whether a longer-term stay is necessary.
The state has to finalize the district map for the upcoming election cycle by Dec. 31, which means the Supreme Court’s decision on the motion could be the final say on where the district lines fall for the 2026 election. In its Tuesday brief, North Dakota argued that granting the plaintiffs’ request could force the state to hold another election under “a court-imposed map that the Eighth Circuit has now determined should never have been imposed to begin with.”
The state also addressed another major dispute central to the case: the implications of the 8th Circuit’s ruling on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which outlaws racially discriminatory voting practices.
The 8th Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs had no right to bring the lawsuit because private individuals cannot bring lawsuits under Section 2. The court found that Congress intended for this to be the sole responsibility of the U.S. Department of Justice.
In the wake of this ruling, voters in all seven 8th Circuit states have no way of bringing lawsuits to challenge alleged racial discrimination under Section 2. No other appellate circuit has drawn similar conclusions about the statute.
The state wrote that the 8th Circuit was right to make this conclusion. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, have argued that the appellate court’s findings contradict U.S. Supreme Court precedent and take away an important tool for voters to protect their rights.
On Tuesday afternoon, 15 Republican-led states filed a friend-of-the-court brief agreeing with North Dakota’s position. They wrote that allowing private individuals and groups to bring lawsuits under Section 2 would upset the balance of power between the federal government and states.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, meanwhile, filed a brief in support of the tribes. The organization argued that there is a “clear record” of Congress supporting private enforcement of Section 2, including by amending the Voting Rights Act to make it easier for people to file such lawsuits.
The legal group also noted that it has represented Black voters in private lawsuits filed under Section 2 since the 1940s. It said many of those lawsuits were ultimately heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, citing 19 cases ranging from 1953 to 2024. According to the legal group, the ability of citizens and organizations to enforce compliance with Section 2 through private litigation has helped make it the most successful civil rights law in American history.
The plaintiffs have until October to file their official petition asking the Supreme Court to review the lawsuit.
The seven states in the 8th Circuit are North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri and Arkansas.
The 15 states that filed the brief in support of North Dakota’s position are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and West Virginia.
Comments