A federal judge said she will rule on an emergency injunction regarding a federal lawsuit by two Native American tribes alleging voter disenfranchisement by two Nevada counties and the secretary of state’s office.
U.S. District Judge Miranda Du heard a full day of arguments and testimony on Tuesday from the Pyramid Lake and Walker River Paiute tribes requesting satellite voter registration, early polling places and Election Day voter sites from Washoe and Mineral counties.
The tribes made the requests in August, which the counties denied. They filed suit in early September, alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Native Americans are considered a protected group under the act.
The counties denied any discrimination is taking place and state the reason for denial is logistics and cost.
Steven Sandven, the attorney for the tribes, argued that the long distance to early polling places and registration combined with zero outreach constituted disenfranchisement.
The plaintiffs introduced several pieces of evidence that indicated election education, including how to register, was lacking on reservations. Most were unsure of how to register to vote and lacked the necessary means – a computer or reliable car – to be able to register, according to a survey presented into evidence by the plaintiffs.
Bret Healy, a consultant for the Native American group Four Directions, said the survey showed Native Americans routinely felt discriminated against at more than 80 percent on Pyramid Lake. More than half of tribal members from both Pyramid Lake and Walker River said they trusted the tribal government most, while around 10 percent said they trusted either the state or local governments the most.
Brent Ryman, the attorney representing Mineral County, said the survey was suspect because of small sample size, methodology and those who chose to respond were rewarded monetarily. He also criticized Healy for not providing the survey results at the time of the initial requests.
Healy countered by saying the survey was overseen by a highly-qualified professional and many surveys offer compensation for the subjects’ time.
The tribes also argued the secretary of state’s office was more involved than previously stated. Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske’s office has repeatedly said they did not ask the counties to refrain from responding, including in a sworn affidavit where they called the claim “patently false.”
However, that runs contrary to comments from Washoe County Registrar Luanne Cutler and an email from Mineral County Clerk-Treasurer Chris Nepper, who both stated Cegavske’s office asked them to hold off on responding before a conference call to get on the same page.
When asked by the Reno Gazette-Journal, Wayne Thorley, Cegavske’s deputy for elections, confirmed the secretary of state’s office asked the counties to wait to respond until after a conference call, but said this didn’t constitute asking the counties to refrain.
“We didn’t ask them to not respond to the letter at all,” Thorley said. “That’s what we meant by refrain. We told them that they definitely should respond to the letter. But we just weren’t going to respond on their behalf because these decisions are properly left to them.”
During the court hearings Tuesday, the state argued Cegavske’s office should not be included in the lawsuit because election decisions are handled at the local level. The tribes argued as the top election official, Cegavske has the responsibility to enforce federal election law, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
“She might have the responsibility, but I don’t know if she has the authority,” said Lori Story, an assistant attorney general representing Cegavske.
Du said she could not find a reason that Cegavske’s office was not a proper party.
The counties argued that the lack of polling places or registration on the reservations was not because of racial discrimination, but rather an effect of living in a rural area. Michael Large, the attorney representing Washoe County, said other rural areas of predominantly white people also don’t have access to early voting or in-person registration, but have other options such as online registration and mail-in ballots.
“Their situation is exactly the same as every other voter except for proximity,” Large said.
The counties also said any order to change plans so close to Election Day would be unfeasible.
Justice Department lawyers said Monday they are not taking sides, but want to make clear that the state and counties have “inaccurately” stated the legal standard used to judge voting rights violations. They said the U.S. government has a “substantial interest” in the “proper interpretation and uniform enforcement” of the 1965 law nationwide.
“Defendants suggest that access to in-person early voting and in-person voter registration opportunities are merely a ‘voting convenience’” and therefore not protected by the law, wrote Vanita Gupta, principal deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
Gupta said other misstatements include claims that the tribes must prove “outright denials of the ability to vote or participate” and “an inability to elect candidates of their choice.”
“These arguments are without merit and should be rejected,” Gupta wrote.
Source: Reno Gazette-Journal; 10.4.16
