Skip Navigation
Analysis

How North Dakota’s Voter ID Law Will Disenfranchise Native Americans

The burden will fall most heavily on communities that are historically marginalized.

October 18, 2018

In North Dakota, a hotly contested U.S. Senate race could determ­ine which party controls the cham­ber. But the rules that will now be in place are likely to disen­fran­chise Native Amer­ican voters.

For years, the North Dakota Legis­lature has tried to imple­ment a burden­some voter ID law. While proponents claim that these types of laws help to prevent in-person voter fraud, numer­ous stud­ies have docu­mented that this type of fraud rarely occurs. At the same time, they create very real burdens on legit­im­ate voters. Voter ID laws disen­fran­chise the many Amer­ic­ans who do not possess the required ID, and the burden falls dispro­por­tion­ately on communit­ies that are already the most margin­al­ized. In North Dakota, that means its large Native Amer­ican popu­la­tion.

In 2013, the North Dakota Legis­lature enacted a voter ID law that required voters to present one of a short list of IDs at the polls in order to vote and got rid of any fail-safe options for people who didn’t possess the requis­ite ID. The Native Amer­ican Rights Fund (NARF) repres­en­ted seven Native Amer­ican voters in a chal­lenge to the law in federal court. NARF made clear that the law would dispro­por­tion­ately impact Native Amer­ican voters and also docu­mented the long history of discrim­in­a­tion against Native Amer­ic­ans in North Dakota — in voting, but also in other areas like educa­tion, loss of Native Amer­ican land, and govern­ment lend­ing.

The voters won. The court recog­nized that, without any fail-safe for voters without ID, the law could disen­fran­chise thou­sands of Native Amer­ican voters. There­fore, it blocked the state from imple­ment­ing the law without a fail-safe.

That should have been the end of the story, but the North Dakota Legis­lature wasn’t finished. When the Legis­lature returned to session in 2017, it tried again, enact­ing a similar ID law to the one that was previ­ously blocked. 

The same voters, still repres­en­ted by NARF, chal­lenged the law, and the district court again direc­ted the state to expand the options avail­able to voters. Among other things, the court blocked the state from requir­ing ID to have a resid­en­tial street address, as opposed to a current mail­ing address, because Native Amer­ican communit­ies often don’t have street addresses. The modi­fic­a­tions ordered by the district court were in place for the 2018 primary elec­tion.

The state appealed part of the district court’s order. And in Septem­ber the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals put an emer­gency halt to part of the order — in partic­u­lar, the court of appeals permit­ted the state to proceed with requir­ing resid­en­tial street addresses on IDs, despite the poten­tial effect on Native Amer­ican voters. The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to over­turn the court of appeals and to return to the rules that were in place for the primar­ies. But on Octo­ber 9 — less than a month before the elec­tion — a major­ity of the Supreme Court denied that request. Justice Ruth Bader Gins­burg dissen­ted, point­ing out that the last-minute rule change was likely to cause signi­fic­ant confu­sion to voters.

The upshot of all this back and forth is that new, more burden­some voting rules will be put in place at the last minute in North Dakota’s elec­tion. This outcome is doubly bad: The new obstacles to voting imposed by the law are likely to disen­fran­chise voters, and the confu­sion around their imple­ment­a­tion may disen­fran­chise even more voters. Further­more, the law’s effects will fall most heav­ily on Native Amer­ican communit­ies that have histor­ic­ally seen their voices margin­al­ized. 

For now, the state must make an urgent and good-faith effort to educate voters about the rules that will be in place, and it must care­fully train poll work­ers to apply those rules. More gener­ally, Amer­ic­ans must demand elec­tions that are free, fair, and open to all eligible voters.

(Image: Shut­ter­stock.com)