2010 Lembrich: South Dakota 2010 Post-Election Wrapup & Analysis
This report briefly analyzes the voter turnout statistics on South Dakota reservations in this election, addresses some of the problems encountered by Native American voters, and offers perspectives on what can be changed and improved in the future to continue to grow and strengthen the Native Vote in South Dakota.
2010 was a turbulent year for Native American voting in South Dakota. After a decade of significant gains in voter registration, turnout, and empowerment, aided by strong get out the vote and election protection efforts, South Dakota’s Native American voters faced both familiar obstacles and new challenges in the 2010 election cycle. As was the case in 2008, voters in several reservation counties were granted only limited and begrudging access to early voting, an opportunity universally offered to voters in the rest of the state. Voters in Shannon County also faced the serious prospect of being disenfranchised entirely after the abrupt resignations of several Fall River County officials and slow reaction from top state officials threatened to leave most voters on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation with no polling places on Election Day and no election officials to count their ballots. Ultimately, however, the most severe dangers were avoided and South Dakota’s Native American voters rallied to achieve impressive participation that largely defied the statewide trend of deflated turnout.
This report briefly analyzes the voter turnout statistics on South Dakota reservations in this election, addresses some of the problems encountered by Native American voters, and offers perspectives on what can be changed and improved in the future to continue to grow and strengthen the Native vote in South Dakota. The statistics cited are from the South Dakota Secretary of State’s website (www.sdsos.gov); the views expressed herein are my own.
Strong Turnout on Many Reservations Diverges from Statewide Decline
In finding a reasonable yardstick against which to measure voter turnout in South Dakota for this election, one must logically look past the strong numbers of 2008 (fueled by a historic presidential election and a contested U.S. Senate race) and look to the last midterm election in 2006. Like 2010, 2006 had no presidential race, no U.S. Senate race (2010 was uncontested), and state government races (for the offices of Governor, Attorney General, etc.) that pre-election polling predicted would not be particularly competitive. The only significant difference between 2010 and 2006 was that the U.S. House of Representatives election was obviously much more hotly contested in this election, with incumbent Stephanie Herseth Sandlin ultimately losing her seat by a two- point margin to Kristi Noem (after cruising to re-election by a nearly 40-point margin in 2006). The attention on that race would have perhaps suggested that increased turnout should have been expected in 2010 versus the 2006 midterm election. In fact, however, statewide voter turnout was just 62.3 percent in the 2010 election, down a full five points from 67.3 percent in 2006. Many in the media have offered the explanation that this decline was due to a trend (also seen elsewhere nationally) of “angry” or “apathetic” voters that expressed their dissatisfaction by remaining home on Election Day.
The trend of decreased turnout, however, did not apply to most reservation counties in South Dakota. In fact, many heavily Native American areas actually saw significant increases in voter turnout (on a percentage basis) from the 2006 midterm election. For example, turnout in Todd County, home of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, increased by more than six points over 2006 ( jumping to 40.3 percent from 34.1 percent). Nearby Mellette County (which is also majority Native American) saw a similar improvement, up more than five points (from 56.4 percent to 61.9 percent). The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation witnessed gains as well, with turnout in Shannon County increasing more than 3.5 points from 31.3 percent in 2006 to nearly 35 percent in 2010, neighboring Bennett County up more than 6 points (increasing to 57.2 percent from 50.8 percent), and Jackson County also up slightly (55.8 percent versus 55.1 percent in 2006). Dewey County, part of the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation, and Charles Mix County, home of the Yankton Sioux Indian Reservation, also saw modest gains in voter turnout percentage in this election.
In total, only 16 of South Dakota’s 66 counties had increased voter turnout percentage in 2010 from the previous midterm election, and nearly half were in areas with significant Native American population on or near reservations. In fact, four of the six counties that saw the largest increase in turnout percentage over 2006 (Bennett, Todd, Mellette, and Shannon) have Native American majority populations. What is most striking about the statistics, as a whole, is that voters on and around South Dakota’s reservations came out in force in 2010, overcoming obstacles to voting and defying the statewide trend of decreased participation, to continue the progress toward the Native vote becoming a sustained and powerful electoral force in South Dakota.
Lingering Problems, and New Threats to Native American Voting
Despite these encouraging results, several problems persisted or emerged in this election cycle that need to be addressed prior to 2012 in order to continue the positive momentum and avoid the threats to equal ballot access faced by South Dakota’s Native American voters in 2010.
Early Voting
In the 2008 election, 64 of South Dakota’s 66 counties had several weeks of early voting. The only two that did not were Shannon County and Todd County, home to the state’s two largest Indian reservations. Ultimately, Shannon County received only two days of early voting (one of which was cut short when officials ran out of ballots) and Todd County had only one. While reservation voters fared better in 2010, it was not without a fight, and problems of unequal access persist.
The biggest development in this area in 2010 was clearly the well-documented standoff between Shannon County and Fall River County officials over providing early voting for Shannon residents at a location within Shannon County. The situation deteriorated to the point that several Fall River County officials (including the County Auditor and States Attorney) threatened to resign their roles with Shannon County rather than provide an early voting precinct. Such resignations would not only have denied early voting opportunities to Shannon County citizens, but also threatened to disenfranchise them entirely as there would have been no officials to organize polling places or oversee the election for that county. Despite strong opposition and objections, a coalition that included the Oglala Sioux Tribe, the U.S. Department of Justice, Four Directions, the ACLU, and others was ultimately successful in working with the Shannon County Commissioners to both provide early voting in Pine Ridge and avoid the resignations of the Fall River County officials.
Equal access to early voting, however, remains a concern. As unincorporated counties, Shannon and Todd are dependent upon the neighboring counties with which they contract (Fall River and Tripp, respectively) to provide numerous essential government services, including the administration of state and federal elections. This situation leaves those counties vulnerable to unequal treatment, particularly with regard to early voting, and also the risk that the neighboring county officials could terminate the agreement on the eve of an election (as nearly happened this year), leaving the county without any election officials and the votes of thousands of citizens in limbo. Further, while money should not be an issue, with Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”) funds available to the counties to pay for such election-related expenses, the State has erected certain barriers to accessing these funds which has made it difficult for the counties to avail themselves of the assistance. The recent solution in Shannon County, for example, was only made possible after Four Directions stepped forward with a $5,000 donation to help the county cover early voting expenses. And, despite the success of the negotiations that established in-person early voting in Todd and Shannon counties, the early voting location was not available in those counties on Election Day for voters to obtain and/or submit absentee ballots, as they could in each of the state’s other counties.
In addition, while other reservation counties do provide standard early voting opportunities to their citizens, in some cases the county seat locations where the early voting precincts are housed are located far from the population centers of the reservations. For example, Dewey County voters must travel to Timber Lake, more than 40 miles from Eagle Butte, to vote early, while voters in Buffalo County must go to Gann Valley, a small, unincorporated community more than 25 miles from Fort Thompson. While such distances may not seem unreasonable, many citizens in these areas have limited access to transportation (Buffalo County is the poorest county in America according to the 2000 census, while Dewey ranked as the 11th poorest), rendering them essentially unable to vote early. Efforts to establish satellite early voting stations on reservations have thus far met with little success.
Polling Place Misconduct and Intimidation of Native Voters
The atmosphere in the 2010 election in and around polling places in Native American communities, like that of 2008, was significantly improved from that which permeated elections on reservations earlier in the decade. Reports of voter harassment, intimidation, mistreatment, and other polling place misconduct were minimal. Unlike 2002 and 2004, for example, there were no reports of threats made to voters, attempts to prevent voters from voting through coercive tactics (physical or verbal), baseless challenges to voters’ identities or qualifications, or inappropriate actions by law enforcement. While there were some minor incidents (such as partisan poll watchers photographing voters without their consent, giving improper instructions to poll workers, or creating small disruptions in polling places), such occurrences were scarce and generally rectified quickly by election officials or observers. Hopefully the fact that we have now seen relative calm and no major reported incidents on Election Day for at least two consecutive cycles is an indication that the election protection efforts and media attention that have been directed toward these issues have been effective in curbing them on a permanent basis.
Poll Worker Training and Preparedness
While also improving, training for precinct superintendents and other polling place election officials continues to fall below ideal levels. There were widespread reports of poll workers failing to follow proper procedures, including checking master and inactive voter lists to resolve registration questions, directing voters to their proper precinct if they were in the wrong place, or calling the county auditor when appropriate. These mistakes sometimes resulted in over-reliance upon provisional ballots (see below) for voters who were entitled to vote by regular ballot. Moreover, while few (if any) voters were ultimately disenfranchised as a result, several precincts were not fully prepared to open at 7 a.m. (and one Pine Ridge precinct did not open until approximately 7:30 a.m.) Multiple polling places in reservation counties lacked necessary forms (or sufficient quantities of such forms), including cards required for inactive voters to renew their registration and vote. Several also failed to post sample ballots or to provide the necessary accommodations for Lakota speakers (translator, written materials, etc.) for all or part of Election Day. Many poll workers lacked familiarity with the AutoMARK machines, and the machines frequently malfunctioned, so few voters used them.
Changes in Polling Place Locations
On several reservations, the locations of one or more polling places were changed in 2010 from their longstanding traditional venues. In some cases, these changes were made without adequate notice to the voters or the relevant tribal governments. Fortunately, the new locations were almost always located within a short distance of the old ones, but the changes nonetheless resulted in unnecessary confusion on Election Day.
Provisional Ballots
Voters may vote by provisional ballot when their right to vote cannot be established at the precinct. Such provisional ballots are segregated from the ballot box, not confidential, and often not counted. A potentially troubling trend emerged in the 2010 election as provisional ballots were cast at much greater levels in many reservation polling places than at precincts in the rest of the state. There were 290 total provisional ballots cast statewide in 2010. Of these, a staggering 96 (more than 33 percent) were in Shannon County, with one Pine Ridge precinct alone accounting for 56 provisional ballots (nearly 20 percent of the statewide total from all 791 precincts). To compare, Minnehaha County (the state’s largest and home of Sioux Falls), which had more than 25 times as many voters as Shannon in the 2010 election, had only 41 provisional ballots cast, and Pennington County (the second largest and home of Rapid City), had a mere 25 provisional ballots despite having 14 times as many voters as Shannon. In addition, Fall River County (which administered the Shannon County election) itself had only seven provisional ballots, less than one-tenth of Shannon’s total, even though it had more total votes cast.
Shannon County and Pine Ridge were not alone in seeing a disproportionate number of provisional votes. Dewey County also saw an unusually high number of provisional ballots with 24 (16 in the four Eagle Butte precincts alone) and several other reservation area precincts had significant numbers of provisional votes cast as well. All told, of the 10 precincts statewide that had five or more provisional ballots, eight were on reservations (five in Shannon County), and all four precincts that had 10 or more provisional ballots were on reservations (three in Shannon County). While these figures alone do not provide evidence of discrimination or disenfranchisement, they do suggest that Native American voters are more likely to be denied a regular ballot than their non-Native counterparts, and such unequal access is certainly cause for concern.
Inactive Voters
The tremendous interest in the 2002 and 2004 federal congressional races led to substantial increases in voter registration throughout South Dakota – particularly on the reservations. A significant number of these voters, however, have not voted since those high-profile elections. South Dakota allows county auditors to remove voters from the active registration rolls if they have not voted within the last four years. While these “inactive voters” are still able to vote if they renew their registration at their polling place, they are not found on the active voter list at their precinct and there is often confusion regarding their registration. For the 2010 election, nearly 10 percent of all registered voters in South Dakota were “inactive”, and this number was even higher in several reservation area counties (for example, 21.6 percent in Bennett County, 16.4 percent in Todd County, 14.5 percent in Shannon County, and 14.2 percent in Corson County). In many heavily Native American counties, the number of voters who have become inactive over the past two cycles has surpassed the number of new voter registrations, such that the number of active registered voters has actually decreased over the past few years.
Room for Improvement
While the last ten years have represented a tremendous leap forward for Native American voting in South Dakota, there is still considerable potential to further increase the Native vote and to eliminate the problems and obstacles that remain. The following are some brief suggestions and goals for achieving these objectives:
Steps must be taken to secure equal early voting opportunities for citizens in Shannon and Todd Counties (with in-person early voting locations located within those counties) on a routine basis. We should not need to fight over this issue every two years. The goal must be a permanent resolution, not a series of hasty compromises that leave lingering uncertainty or rely on funding from third-party groups. Efforts should also be undertaken on reservations statewide to increase the availability of satellite early voting stations (even if available only for limited days or hours) in tribal communities that are not located near county seats.
The dependence of Shannon and Todd Counties on their neighboring counties for election services must also be addressed. The catastrophic threat of disenfranchising thousands of Native American voters that was narrowly averted in Shannon County 2010 should never be repeated. All voters deserve security that their votes will be cast and counted regardless of contractual disputes and other issues between counties. It is the state’s constitutional responsibility to guarantee equal voting rights to all of its citizens, and hopefully the new administration in Pierre will proactively establish a system that removes any dangers to the exercise of those rights in South Dakota’s unincorporated counties.
Improved training should be provided to and required for precinct superintendents and other poll workers, along with increased emphasis on polling place basics such as opening precincts on time, having ample copies of necessary forms, and contact with the county auditor in the event of any questions or problems.
Any future changes in polling place locations need to be better communicated to voters and the Tribes (many of whom have the ability to effectively get such information out to their members) in advance of the election.
More information should be gathered to determine why provisional voting is so much more prevalent on reservations than in the rest of the state of South Dakota so that appropriate steps can be taken in future elections to reduce the level of provisional ballots and ensure that voters who are entitled to vote by regular ballot may do so.
Many reservations need to build a more effective and established Get Out The Vote effort. Such initiatives will require increased and earlier funding from both partisan and non- partisan groups. Successful field operations, particularly in rural areas, take months of planning and effort, and cannot be funded or organized in the closing days or weeks of an election cycle and expected to produce anything more than mediocre results. Ideally, voter registration, voter education and empowerment, and GOTV efforts would be sustained continuously (with at least minimal staff and funding in non-election years) to allow local expertise and institutional knowledge to grow and eliminate the need to constantly reinvent the wheel in these areas. There is also the need for better training of local volunteers in effective field operations procedures and get out the vote techniques. Such training is available both from partisan groups and non- partisan organizations such as Wellstone Action.
Voting initiatives in tribal communities should specifically target young people, who make up a significant portion of the population on many reservations (roughly half of the population on Pine Ridge, for example, is under 18 years old). The importance of voting should be emphasized in schools and community groups, and voter registration at age 18 and subsequent voting in elections should be strongly encouraged to build a lasting culture of democratic participation. Specific efforts should also be made to reach out to and re-engage inactive voters who are registered and have voted in the past, but not participated in recent elections.
