Native Americans sue for voting rights

However, Semans noted, Shannon County had early voting in 2004—and in 2010—only because Four Directions donated $15,000 and $5,000, respectively, to pay for it. This year, the group isn’t certain it can come up with another donation, said Semans, adding that, in any case, voters shouldn’t have to rely on unpredictable outside funding to get ballot box access.
Click to expand...

the issue is about money, not rights. i don't believe there is a seperate right to "early" vote, rather, it is a convenience.
 
Rune said:
Don't they have the same rights as the rest of the state?
Click to expand...

did you read the article? and yes, they have the same rights. the issue here appears to be about money and certain districts don't have enough money to have long early voting periods. according to the article, they can get reimbursed, but this district, doesn't have the funds. if you had read the article, you would see that previously they did have the same early voting period because of donations.

is there a seperate right to early voting?
 
The republican power brokers in the state have made it that way so POOR counties could not get any of the money
 
at least according to desh's source, which she apparently didn't bother to read:

After the suit was filed, Gant told a local news outlet that as a matter of policy, South Dakota doesn’t provide money under the federal voting act upfront, but rather reimburses districts for election expenditures upon presentation of receipts. Federal rules do not require the practice, but rather allow states to set the terms for distributing the money, according to Bryan Whitener, a spokesman for the federal Election Assistance Commission, which provides guidance on the law.

...

Their funds are so low because South Dakota counties tax land to finance their budgets, but most of Shannon County’s land is nontaxable, because it’s either tribally-owned or held in trust for the Oglala Sioux Tribe by the federal government, she explained.
Click to expand...

further...nothing is stopping them from absentee voting. imo, this is a non-issue.
 
evince said:
http://100r.org/2012/01/south-dakota-indians-sue-for-early-voting/
Click to expand...


After the suit was filed, Gant told a local news outlet that as a matter of policy, South Dakota doesn’t provide money under the federal voting act upfront, but rather reimburses districts for election expenditures upon presentation of receipts. Federal rules do not require the practice, but rather allow states to set the terms for distributing the money, according to Bryan Whitener, a spokesman for the federal Election Assistance Commission, which provides guidance on the law.
 
This state has a long history of trying to keep people from voting, well democratic brown people anyway.
 
Rune said:
Too bad Gant couldn't be charged criminaly.
Click to expand...

For what? Every county in the state is treated the same. That said, the fact that Shannon county is so poor, they should make an exception. I wonder how geographically dispersed the 7800 voters are in that county. You would think they would be able to set up polling stations that are closer than 2.5 hour round trips. Unless this tribe is really really dispersed, I would think it feasible without much economic impact on the state.
 
i already quoted that and that does not prove your claim. what is wrong with reimbursement? all districts are treated the same.

once again, desh fails to prove her claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top