Native Voting Rights Center Stage in South Dakota

SOUTH DAKOTA – In a developing conflict over public records, the City of Martin, South Dakota, and the Oglala Sioux Tribe find themselves at an impasse, with the South Dakota American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) intervening. At the heart of the dispute is a request made by the tribe under the South Dakota Sunshine Act for records that could reveal potential violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The City of Martin’s response, demanding a waiver of the tribe’s sovereign immunity and pre-payment of unspecified attorney and administrative fees, has sparked a legal challenge.

The initial request from the tribe, made on August 25, sought a comprehensive array of documents spanning two decades. These included election results, redistricting maps, meeting agendas concerning redistricting, and analyses of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or Gingles factors. In a turn of events on September 11, the City of Martin denied this request, citing the need for the tribe to waive its sovereign immunity and to cover the costs of retrieving 20 years’ worth of records, including attorney fees.

Reacting to this denial, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, assisted by the South Dakota ACLU, scaled back their request to a 10-year period. Despite this adjustment, the city maintained its stipulations, leading the tribe, represented by the ACLU, Native American Rights Fund, and Public Council, to appeal the city’s demands in the South Dakota Office of Hearing Examiners.

The ACLU has criticized the city’s stance. Stephanie Amiotte, legal director of the ACLU of South Dakota and a citizen of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, questioned the city’s motives in a phone call with the Rapid City Journal. “Why do they not want to produce these records without imposing these very stiff, punitive demands on the tribe...?” Amiotte asked. She implied that the city’s reluctance to provide the records might indicate non-compliance with the Voting Rights Act or other laws.

The City of Martin, however, defended its position through its attorney, Sara Frankenstein, also speaking to the Rapid City Journal. Frankenstein explained that the nature of the documents, their broad scope, and the legal analysis required to determine their eligibility for public disclosure under South Dakota law justified the city’s conditions. She emphasized the strain such a vast request places on the city’s limited resources.

The dispute hinges on the concept of tribal sovereignty, a legal status that grants tribes immunity from lawsuits. The tribe contends that the city’s demands are unreasonable or made in bad faith. Frankenstein, representing the city, argued that the waiver of sovereign immunity was necessary to ensure payment for the request, given the city’s inability to legally enforce payment due to the tribe’s sovereign status.

Amiotte also pointed out to the Rapid City Journal the broader implications of the city’s demand for a waiver of sovereign immunity, seeing it as part of a larger trend of eroding the constitutionally protected status of tribes as sovereign nations.

Despite the ongoing legal battle, records shared with the Rapid City Journal and ICT revealed that the City of Martin did provide the tribe with a January 2022 redistricting map. However, the city remains firm in its stance that no further records will be released without pre-payment.

The complexity of the issue is further highlighted by the geographic and demographic context. The City of Martin and Bennett County are located within the exterior boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation and recognized by the Department of the Interior as reservation land. However, state agencies like the South Dakota Department of Transportation generally do not recognize Bennett County as within the reservation. This disparity is mirrored in the city’s population, roughly half of which is non-Native.

This is not the first legal confrontation between the City of Martin and the ACLU regarding voting rights. In 2005, the South Dakota ACLU sued the city for violations of the Voting Rights Act, a case that was ultimately dismissed after an 11-day bench trial.

In a statement, the ACLU of South Dakota condemned the City of Martin’s conditions as an attempt to intimidate the tribe and hinder transparency regarding potential new Voting Rights Act violations. ACLU representatives, including Stephanie Amiotte and Samantha Kelty of NARF, emphasized the importance of governmental transparency and the alarming nature of the city’s attempts to block access to public documents. Mustafa Filat, a Justice Catalyst Fellow at Public Counsel’s Opportunity Under Law Project, also noted the chilling effect of imposing attorney fees on public record requests.

The timeline of events underscores the escalating nature of the dispute. Following the tribe’s initial request in August, the city’s response in September set the stage for the current legal challenge. The tribe’s objection in November and the city’s reaffirmation of its stance in December reflect the deepening divide between the two parties.

The ACLU of South Dakota, as part of a larger organization that includes North Dakota and Wyoming, remains committed to preserving civil liberties and rights, with a particular focus on underrepresented groups such as people of color, women, and LGBTQ communities. This case represents another chapter in its ongoing efforts to advance these principles in South Dakota.

As the legal battle continues, the implications of this dispute extend beyond the immediate parties involved, touching on issues of tribal sovereignty, governmental transparency, and voting rights, with potential consequences for the broader relationship between Native American tribes and municipal authorities.