Bob Mercer notes that Secretary of State Shantel Krebs continues to distinguish herself from disgraced and feckless predecessor Jason Gant by promoting criteria for funding satellite early-voting centers. Gant for some time resisted satellite early-voting centers, which in South Dakota help equalize voting access for American Indian voters. Secretary Krebs has been clearer in her support for this aspect of voting-access equality.
The Secretary’s Help America Vote Act Grant Board meets Monday to discuss criteria for satellite early-voting centers. Here are the draft criteria on Monday’s agenda:
The following criteria must be met before a county may be allowed to use HAVA funds to setup an additional in-person satellite absentee voting location in a particular jurisdiction. The voters living in the jurisdiction*:
- Have 50% more individuals below the poverty line than the rest of the county; and
- Live, on average, 50% farther from the existing county seat or other satellite location than the rest of the county.
OR
- Jurisdiction for the criteria listed below is limited to an incorporated municipality, unincorporated town or a census designated place; and
- Have no access to affordable, regular, convenient public transportation within the county from the proposed satellite location to the county seat; and
- The jurisdiction is composed of 75% of more individuals who belong to a suspect class. (Suspect Classes: a presumptively unconstitutional distinction made between individuals on the basis of race, national origin, alienage, or religious affiliation, in a statute ordinance, regulation, or policy.)
*According to the most recent United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey results as analyzed by the Government Research Bureau at the University of South Dakota. A jurisdiction is defined as a voting precinct, township, municipality, town, school district, or special district. The following counties are approved to have met the criteria in this plan: Buffalo, Dewey and Jackson Counties.
A county is not required to spend down their county held HAVA fund balance prior to being awarded HAVA grant funds for an in-person absentee voting satellite location.
A county must submit estimated expenses to the South Dakota Secretary of State’s office three (3) months prior to the election for pre-approval in order to be reimbursed with HAVA funds.
These parameters do not prohibit the Secretary of State from granting additional HAVA funding to the 66 county auditors at any time due to extraordinary circumstances.
A county is allowed (1) HAVA funded satellite voting location, however, these parameters do not preclude counties from spending county non-HAVA related funds to pay for an in- person absentee voting satellite location [South Dakota Secretary of State, “Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Grant Board and Parameters—Draft,” updated 2015.10.07, downloaded 2015.10.15].
Note that these criteria would appear to doom Jackson County’s effort to deny its American Indian voters a satellite early-voting center. The draft parameters for satellite early-voting centers enshrine in policy the criteria proposed by voting-rights advocates Four Directions two years ago. They also make clear that Jackson County really can get the HAVA money that Jackson County doggedly, profligately, and against all evidence insists it cannot get to help Indians vote.
Mercer sees Secretary Krebs’s work on satellite voting centers as part of a broader effort to restore the trust in the office that Gant eroded:
Much of the work for Krebs and her staff during their first 10 months in office has been repairing, restoring and re-establishing services and relationships that suffered damage during her predecessor’s four years. Rather than resist the concept of satellite voting, Krebs and her deputy for election services, Kea Warne, are cooperating by working to find an acceptable approach, such as one center per county in places where poverty and distance criteria are met [Bob Mercer, “SoS Establishing Satellite Voting Center Criteria,” Pure Pierre Politics, 2015.10.15].
The Secretary of State is taking the right steps on satellite early-voting centers, providing clear rules for the federal money that’s available to help all South Dakotans vote. After four years of incompetence, it’s nice to be able to formulate such a sentence about South Dakota’s Secretary of State.
This is good news. I had my doubts about Shantel Krebs but she is making a believer out of me. It will be interesting to see Jackson County’s response to this.
Good for Shantel Krebs! She is probably doomed for support from the governors office and his Hole in the Wall gang, but she certainly has mine. I expect Jackson County to continue to drag their collective feet in this to find some other way of denying the process. Maybe putting the satellite office in Kadoka would be their next step.
Responsible and effective governance from the GOP? Huh. Your move, Tea Party!
States get to set their own guidelines for spending federal dollars to facilitate federal voting rights?????
“help All South Dakota voters”?
Wow she is doing a great job,What ever happened to Jason anyway?
This is a step in the right direction, glad we have a Sec of State interested in actually getting people to to vote.
The complete opposite of Al Nuvstrop, Shantel Krebs shines as a star and true public servant with her work to stop the racist suppression of tribal voters in Jackson County. If and when there is a balance of political party strengths in Pierre, Shantel gives us a glimpse of what responsible governing looks like. Her hiring of Kea Warne to serve as deputy marked a strong signal that the SoS Office will no longer be used as a tool to fill one’s pockets, destroy opponents and reward pals. Doing the right thing is its own reward to a real public servant.
Someone raised an issue in a RC Journal comment that has me puzzled. Addressing the Flandreau Tribe’s marijuana plans, the writer asked why the Tribe members living on the Reservation are allowed to vote in state and local elections, but are not required to obey state and local laws against marijuana.
In other words, if tribal members live on a reservation, which is considered a sovereign nation of its own not subject to South Dakota laws, then why should these folks be able to vote in state elections for the folks who are going to enact and enforce state laws? They can vote for tribal leaders on their respective reservations, so what is the rationale for permitting tribal members to vote on initiated or referred state laws or for state lawmakers, such as Governor, AG, SoS, SD House and Senate members, etc, when such elected officials cannot enact or enforce laws to govern conduct on the reservations?
As a supporter of Natives’ right to vote, I found this comment offensive, but I had to admit that it seems to raise a legitimate question. Indeed, folks who live in Nebraska, Minnesota, Wyoming, or North Dakota who perhaps commute to SD for employment or school have no right to vote in SD elections. What makes it different for folks who live on SD reservations not subject to SD state laws?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to argue that they shouldn’t be able to vote. I am just wondering if there is a rational argument to address this writer’s point. What say you blogsters?
From the Liberry of Congress- http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/elections/voters9.html
New Mexico was the last state to enfranchise Indians in 1962.
This seems to be a good explanation. http://www.wisegeek.org/are-native-americans-dual-citizens.htm
This guy explains it better than i can.
Bear, I read that letter and was a little irked by it, but there is at least a partial answer.
Natives living on and off the reservation pay numerous state taxes, including sales tax that is collected from reservation business, as well as licensing and driver’s license taxes imposed on them.
It is true that we don’t pay property taxes on reservation property because of our unique treaties with the federal government where those lands are held in federal trust.
They also have to live under the laws and legal system when they leave the Reservation, so they deserve a say in the the application of law and who applies it.
On another topic, it seems Oregon’s vote by mail would be a way to satisfy the Right’s concerns of twos or threes of people violating voting laws by voting twice.
The rights’ concerns about voting more than once are partisan chaff. It is hard enough to get people to vote even once. Right now we can vote by mail. It might cost a buck or two in postage stamps, but driving very far can cost much more than that.
Roger and barry both make some good points, yet the exact same points apply to residents of surrounding states. For example, non-residents traveling through SD pay gas tax, sales tax, and are subject to SD’s laws and legal system every time they pass through the state, yet they cannot vote in SD’s elections.
Roger, the driver’s license question is interesting. Do our tribes issue driver’s licenses? Does a tribal member have to have a SD driver’s license to drive on the reservation? Would a drivers license issued by the tribe suffice for travel in SD off the reservation in the same manner as a non-resident’s driver’s license from another state?
Natives living off a reservation logically would have the same full voting rights as every SD resident. But I am still puzzled about the source of SD state voting rights of Natives residing on the reservation, since SD criminal or civil laws cannot be applied in any respect to Natives on the reservation because the Tribes and US government hold exclusive jurisdiction.
BCB, very interesting question. I don’t have a full answer, but…
We could take the position that sovereignty means sovereignty: if you’re a resident of a completely independent nation, then you are completely independent: no tax obligation to South Dakota, no voting rights in South Dakota, etc. You visit on a passport and obey our laws while here, but you don’t vote.
However, the sovereignty of the reservations with respect to South Dakota is clearly different from the sovereignty of Canada vis-a-vis the United States. The reservations are not practically independent nations. They are surrounded by South Dakota. They operate interweavingly with and inextricably from the state, politically and economically. They still exist in large part under our subjugation as a conquered nation. They could take a radical sovereignty position and refuse to vote in our elections, but I’m not sure we can make that decision for them and exclude them from our elections. Allowing them to vote in our elections seems a very mild reparatory gesture; whether they choose to exercise that right is up to them.
But I’m open to the argument from my Lakota neighbors: would you trade voting rights in South Dakota elections for complete legal and practical sovereignty on the reservation?
The United States government has designated almost 600 locations in the country as sovereign Indian territories, which means that Native American leaders in those areas can establish their own laws, public services, taxes, and other rights left to the other 50 states. What they cannot do is establish their own military or issue their own currency, which puts Indian reservations in the same subservient position as states and overseas territories. In that sense, the people who live there are considered US citizens who happen to live on property that the government technically holds in trust.
It may be more accurate to think of Native Americans as US citizens who must pay federal taxes, obtain US birth certificates, register for a US Social Security number, and carry a US driver’s license for identification. This is considered to be a separate issue from nationality per se, which means that someone living on tribal territory is always free to consider himself or herself a member of a recognized tribal nation.
Kissinger wrote that treaties are only kept when they benefit both parties. The treaties with Native Americans no longer benefit anybody.