Elephants, Donkeys, Billionaires—and Another Native Vote Win
This article appeared on Indian Country Media Network in 2014. For more on topics like this, see my book, American Apartheid: The Native American Struggle....
Recently, we learned about two Native voting-rights wins in one day in Montana. Today, we turn to the neighboring state of South Dakota for the third breakthrough that same day.
Recently, we learned about two Native voting-rights wins in one day in Montana. Today, we turn to the neighboring state of South Dakota for the third breakthrough that same day.
Pine Ridge Indian Reservation’s Manderson Valley |
Testifying before the committee, Gant called the
donations part of a “slippery slope.” He raised the specter of “a billionaire
coming from New York” and chucking money and influence around the state. Skeptical
committee members got Gant to admit that the only non-governmental entity
helping fund precincts of any kind is a small in-state Native voting-rights
nonprofit called Four Directions. Gant also acknowledged that without Four
Directions donations, “I wouldn’t know what the future would hold for those
places.”
Four Directions head OJ Semans, who is Rosebud Sioux,
testified against the bill, calling voting “the bedrock of our democracy” and pointing
to the value of participation. Said Semans: “To improve their social and
economic conditions, tribes and tribal members have to participate in the
electoral process.”
Semans added that approving the bill and cutting off
the early-voting offices would tell Native citizens, “We don’t want you to
participate.”
More opposing testimony came from Rep. Kevin Killer,
Oglala (D-Shannon County), and Rep. Troy Heinert, Rosebud Sioux (D-Todd and
Mellette counties). Said Heinert: “Native voters have a lot of problems getting
to the ballot box, and this bill would create another hurdle.”
One Republican senator brought up the “elephant in
the room”: the Native vote is overwhelmingly Democratic, and increasing Native
turnout increases Democratic ballots.
Other senators on both sides of the aisle saw increased
access as a plus and local control as the ruling factor. Said Senator Jean
Hunhoff (R-Yankton), “If local governments have decided [accepting donations
is] a way to increase access, they should be allowed to make that decision.” Senator
Angie Buhl O’Donnell (D-Sioux Falls) agreed: “There’s a need for more voting
access, and this is a way to solve it.”
In the end, the committee’s bipartisan five-to-one
vote against the proposal astonished political watchers more accustomed to this
red state’s hostility to the Native vote and, more generally, to the state’s
largest minority group. “By the time the meeting was over, most everyone was
talking equal access to voting,” recalled Semans.
“I’m delighted that the committee
saw this bill for what it was, which is a solution in search of a problem,”
said Sioux Falls attorney and state elections board member Richard Casey. He reported
that the state’s HAVA Task Force is working on language that would allocate
funding for early-voting satellite offices on reservations and in other communities
that meet certain criteria (poverty, distance from county seats and more).
However, South Dakota isn’t singing Kumbaya yet. Republican
rainmakers appear to be talking about re-introducing the failed senate bill,
along the theory that it’s not dead-dead until the legislative session is over
in March. A call to Secretary of State Gant revealed that he was in a meeting
and couldn’t comment, according to state elections coordinator Brandon C.
Johnson. About reintroducing the senate bill, Johnson said, “Honestly, I haven’t
heard a thing.”
Text c. Stephanie Woodard. Photo c. Joseph Zummo. This article
was written with support from the George Polk Center for Investigative
Reporting.