logo
Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case that could go to Supreme Court

Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case that could go to Supreme Court

Yahoo07-07-2025
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A federal appeals court won't reconsider its decision in a redistricting case that went against two Native American tribes that challenged North Dakota's legislative redistricting map, and the dispute could be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case has drawn national interest because of a 2-1 ruling issued in May by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that erased a path through the federal Voting Rights Act for people in seven states to sue under a key provision of the landmark federal civil rights law. The tribes argued that the 2021 map violated the act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates.
The panel said only the U.S. Department of Justice can bring such lawsuits. That followed a 2023 ruling out of Arkansas in the same circuit that also said private individuals can't sue under Section 2 of the law.
Those rulings conflict with decades of rulings by appellate courts in other federal circuits that have affirmed the rights of private individuals to sue under Section 2, creating a split that the Supreme Court may be asked to resolve. However, several of the high court's conservative justices recently have indicated interest in making it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act.
After the May decision, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians asked the appeals court for a rehearing before all 11 judges. Attorneys general of 19 states, numerous former U.S. Justice Department attorneys, several voting rights historians and others also asked for a rehearing.
But in a ruling Thursday, the full court denied the request, which was filed by the Native American Rights Fund and other groups representing the tribes. Three judges said they would have granted it, including Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton, who had dissented in the previous ruling.
The majority opinion in May said that for the tribes to sue under the Voting Rights Act, the law would have had to 'unambiguously' give private persons or groups the right to do so.
Lenny Powell, a staff attorney for the fund, said in a statement that the refusal to reconsider 'wrongly restricts voters disenfranchised by a gerrymandered redistricting map" from challenging that map.
Powell said Monday that the tribes are now considering their legal options.
Another group representing the tribes, the Campaign Legal Center, said the ruling is "contrary to both the intent of Congress in enacting the law and to decades of Supreme Court precedent affirming voters' power to enforce the law in court.'
The office of North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
The groups said they will continue to fight to ensure fair maps. The North Dakota and Arkansas rulings apply only in the states of the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. In the wake of the Arkansas decision, Minnesota and other states have moved to shore up voting rights with state-level protections to plug the growing gaps in the federal law.
The North Dakota tribes filed their lawsuit in 2022. The three-judge panel heard appeal arguments last October after Republican Secretary of State Michael Howe appealed a lower court's November 2023 decision in favor of the tribes.
In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Peter Welte ordered creation of a new district that encompassed both tribes' reservations, which are about 60 miles (97 kilometers) apart. In 2024, voters elected members from both tribes, all Democrats, to the district's Senate seat and two House seats.
Republicans hold supermajority control of North Dakota's Legislature.
___
Karnowski reported from Minneapolis.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Asks Bank CEOs to Pitch Fannie, Freddie Stock Offering
Trump Asks Bank CEOs to Pitch Fannie, Freddie Stock Offering

Yahoo

timea minute ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Asks Bank CEOs to Pitch Fannie, Freddie Stock Offering

(Bloomberg) — President Donald Trump is bringing in bank leaders to meet with him one by one at the White House. Beyond the economic discussion, there's a chance at a big payday for their firms. The World's Data Center Capital Has Residents Surrounded An Abandoned Art-Deco Landmark in Buffalo Awaits Revival We Should All Be Biking Along the Beach Budapest's Most Historic Site Gets a Controversial Rebuild San Francisco in Talks With Vanderbilt for Downtown Campus Trump is asking chief executive officers for their pitches on monetizing mortgage giants Fannie Mae (FNMA, FNMAS, FNMAO, FNMAL) and Freddie Mac (FMCC), including a major public offering of stock, according to people familiar with the matter. Last week, Trump invited JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon to meet him at the White House. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO David Solomon was set to meet with Trump on Thursday afternoon, and Bank of America Corp. CEO Brian Moynihan is also expected to meet the president in coming days. Talks are likely to include other banks as well, the people said. Officially named the Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., the two entities are massive financial organs of the US housing system. The companies have been under government conservatorship since the 2008 financial crisis. Fannie and Freddie have both returned to steady profitability, with earnings being retained. Trump said in May that he's giving 'very serious consideration to bringing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac public.' Small portions of the stock already trade publicly, but a vast majority of the firms' shares are held by the government. After Bloomberg reported on the talks with bankers, shares of both companies rose in extended trading on light volume as of 4:30 p.m. in New York, with Fannie Mae climbing 14% and Freddie Mac advancing 5.7%. Policymakers in Washington have struggled for years with what to do with the so-called government-sponsored enterprises — one of the last loose ends from the crisis era. Efforts to overhaul the US housing finance system and release the mortgage giants from government control have repeatedly foundered in Congress amid concerns about the potential impact on mortgage costs and the companies' role in financing affordable housing. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report last week finding that the sale of Fannie and Freddie would be a mixed bag for the government, at least in terms of accounting. The government could make $206 billion from its stake in the companies, the CBO said, but only if they were put in receivership. Hedge funds and other investors have long called for the US to release the pair from conservatorship, which could provide a windfall for shareholders. Analysts have said it could be one of the biggest public offerings ever — meaning it would probably offer hefty fees for the banks picked to lead it. Many complex details would have to be worked out for any such plan, including what stake would initially be offered in any sale, and how investors who hold existing shares would be treated. Trump is asking the CEOs to offer their ideas on the strategy for taking the organizations public and how their banks might play a role, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing private information. The administration also has conferred with Wells Fargo & Co. as it speaks with lenders, one person said. A spokesperson for the White House had no immediate comment. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, asked earlier Thursday about Trump's meeting with Solomon, declined to detail the purpose. 'I won't discuss the president's private meetings from this podium,' she said. Spokespeople for the banks declined to comment or didn't respond to messages. —With assistance from Yizhu Wang, Patrick Clark and Katy O'Donnell. (Updates with Wells Fargo in 11th paragraph.) Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash Russia Builds a New Web Around Kremlin's Handpicked Super App Everyone Loves to Hate Wind Power. Scotland Found a Way to Make It Pay Off It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan Cage-Free Eggs Are Booming in the US, Despite Cost and Trump's Efforts ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign up for the Yahoo Finance Morning Brief By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy

Extended mayoral term, salary increases and more among proposed charter amendments in NSB
Extended mayoral term, salary increases and more among proposed charter amendments in NSB

Yahoo

timea minute ago

  • Yahoo

Extended mayoral term, salary increases and more among proposed charter amendments in NSB

Five years after New Smyrna Beach residents approved changes to the city charter, another set of proposed amendments is on the way for voters to consider, this time involving mayoral terms, primary election rules, city commission salary increases and more. Those changes are in the New Smyrna Beach Charter Review Committee's final report, presented to the City Commission for the first time Monday, July 28. City commissioners appointed the 11-member committee earlier this year to review and propose updates to the charter. The group met seven times since April 1, discussing and voting on proposals to amend city code language regarding several topics. The 11 members were Mark Billings (who served as chair); Spencer Hathaway; Michael Ison; Judy Reiker; Palmer Wilson; Steve Fusilier; Farley Palmer; Sandra Smith; Khalid Resheidat; Diana Puhl; and Dan Rokjer. Chairman Billings presented eight recommendations to the City Commission during a workshop July 28. Seven of the recommendations are proposed modifications to the city charter, while the other requests the city hold a special election with the proposed changes in November. Previous coverage: NSB Charter Review Committee recommends expanding mayor's term, primary election rules During the workshop, city commissioners and residents voiced their views about the proposed changes, which will only appear on the ballot in a special election in 2025 or 2026 if the City Commission gives its final approval. The city published a video on its Facebook and YouTube pages showing clips from the committee's meetings throughout the last three months, highlighting points of discussion and what the process will look like in the future. Proposed amendments to the New Smyrna Beach charter The seven proposed amendments to the city charter include: Increasing the New Smyrna Beach mayor's term from two to four years. Declaring a candidate a winner in the August primary election 'if the individual garners 50% plus one vote of the votes cast, without the need for a vote at the general election.' Designating the city clerk, currently a charter officer post, as an employee under the city manager. Increasing 'the salary of the commission members to 75% of the County Council Chair for the mayor, and 75% of the mayor's salary for the four other commissioners.' Clarifying the 'prioritization of historic preservation, rather than mandating certain actions.' Adopting a new charter section guiding 'all future commissions on the prioritization of the arts and cultural events in the city.' Clarifying and mandating that 'the Charter be reviewed at least once every 10 years.' According to City Attorney Carrie Avallone, 'once the ballot language is finalized, it must be translated into Spanish and then the ordinances will be presented to the City Commission' twice in August; first on Aug. 12 for a first reading, and again on Aug. 26 for a second reading/public hearing, followed by the final vote. NSB commission, residents weigh in on proposed mayoral term extension The committee considered the pros and cons of changing Sec. 2.02 of the city charter, and extending the mayor's term from two to four years. 'The change (in term years) would align (the mayor) with zone commissioners, afford the mayor additional time to gain experience, and thus the energy and time of the mayor would be better served with issues of our community and fewer days managing an election campaign,' Billings said during the meeting. Commissioner Jason McGuirk, who has served the City Commission for the last 16 years, said the topic of mayoral term length is one the most 'debated topics as far back as I can remember.' 'As far as I can tell, it's 50-50,' McGuirk said. 'The idea is that you can throw out a majority (of the City Commission) every two years, if they are that bad.' While the four zone commissioners serve four-year terms, elections for two of the seats happen every two years. This way, New Smyrna Beach voters will always elect a mayor and two commissioners every two years. 'As far as I know that's never happened,' he added. 'Certainly, it might have happened by coincidence if it did, but the city has never been in such peril that they threw out a majority at a single election.' McGuirk said he is 'comfortable either way' on this issue but stressed that 'the voters are going to decide this.' During public comments, Leslie Sachs said she would vote 'no' on the proposed mayor term's extension, as it 'takes away the power of the people to change the commission by majority every two years.' 'The only way I and everyone I spoke with would vote 'yes' would be term limits,' Sachs said. 'Because this shouldn't be a coronation.' Cindy Sniezak said 'the most compelling reason not to change the mayoral term to four years is it keeps that right with the voter' to change the commission majority every election. 'Because there are no term limits, and because the incumbent always has a large advantage, that's not something I'm willing to give up without getting strict term limits in exchange.' Commissioner Valli Perrine highlighted the potential advantages of the extension. 'I've been out there in the weeds trying to campaign, and it's exhausting,' she said. 'It's not about which mayor is up here, because that is going to cycle out and in, but it's the work they have to do when the rest of (city commissioners) don't do that.' Committee proposes increasing, codifying City Commission salaries Another recommendation is 'increasing the compensation of the mayor to 75% of the Volusia County chair and the city commissioners to 75% of the base salary compensation paid to the NSB mayor.' The mayor's base salary is $27,189.24, while each zone commissioner earns $20,329.06. The Volusia County Council chair's current annual salary is $67,394.40, while other council members earn $56,162.00. That would change the city charter's current language, which gives the city commission power to determine the annual salary for the mayor and commissioners by way of ordinance. Cleveland asked Billings the reasoning behind the proposal. 'It was recognized by the committee as a whole that each of you are at many events outside of (City Commission meetings),' Billings said. 'We felt that we are a city that is a role model for other cities … . And we should have leaders that are compensated to align with the duties you are performing.' Billings added that tying the salary figures to Couty Council numbers 'took away the guess work.' 'It didn't make you have to sit and have a discussion about your salary, and what we believe as a committee is that if changes (occur) at the county level, that means something has evolved and changed within our community where it should be accordingly be rolled down to our elected officials,' the committee chair said. Robbie Gibson-Minor said she 'is all for increases in salaries, if it is something the budget will allow.' 'I also understand how difficulty it is to vote on your own salary increase,' Gibson-Minor said. 'But do you want to be tied to another governmental body in the budgeting process? Are there other ways to look at it?' The first reading for the seven proposed ordinances will take place Aug. 12 at 6:30 p.m. Avallone encouraged commissioners to bring any changes or comments to the proposed language that day, 'so that we can make sure it is ready to go on Aug. 26, should we proceed with the November 2025 special election.' The city attorney added that the board should also decide Aug. 12 whether to send the charter amendments to a special election this year or to 2026's general election. This article originally appeared on The Daytona Beach News-Journal: NSB City Charter Committee proposes 7 changes Solve the daily Crossword

Judy Sullivan not running for reelection to closely divided Brockton school board. Impact?
Judy Sullivan not running for reelection to closely divided Brockton school board. Impact?

Yahoo

timea minute ago

  • Yahoo

Judy Sullivan not running for reelection to closely divided Brockton school board. Impact?

With the field set for upcoming municipal elections in Brockton, the contests for seats on the Brockton School Committee are unusually competitive. There are at least two candidates for seven positions on the Committee. The mayor is the eighth member and chair of the Committee. In the past two elections for the two-year seat, it was typical for most candidates to run unopposed. In 2023, four races had only one candidate and, in 2021, five. All seven incumbents are running for re-election but one Ward 5's longtime committee member Judy Sullivan, creating the potential for a shift in the balance of power on the at times closely-divided board. 'Want me out' Brockton school board member reveals why he was discussed in closed meeting Who is running for School Committee? Brockton is split into seven wards, and each is represented by a school committee member and city councilor. Here are the candidates for the Committee in each ward, with the incumbent indicated by an (i): Ward 1 Stephen Coleman O'Malley Jorge Luis Vega III (i) Stephen V. Pina Ward 2 Claudio Eliseu Depina Gomes (i) Cynthia D. Mccall-Hodges Ward 3 Ana C. Oliver (i) Omega L. Corbett Matthew Stanton Ward 4 Tony Rodrigues (i) Maria Antonia Daveiga Ward 5 Sandra Maria Centeio Nolan Napier Ward 6 Joyce J. Asack (i) Lucibele Daisi Delgado Ward 7 Timothy Joseph Sullivan (i) Jimmy Lutchi Pereira The races with three or more candidates, for Wards 1 and 3, will have preliminary votes on Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2025. The two in each ward who win the most votes will go on to the general election, held Nov. 4, 2025. How competitive were these positions in recent years? In the most recent election, in 2023, four candidates ran unopposed: Kathleen Ehlers, Ward 1; Tony Rodrigues, Ward 4; Joyce Asack, Ward 6; and Timothy Sullivan, Ward 7. Ehlers resigned in March 2024, and was replaced by Jorge Vega. In 2021, the same four candidates also ran unopposed. Judy Sullivan was also unopposed then. Also, the race for the Ward 3 seat was unusually tight in 2023, with Incumbent Ana Oliver beating Matthew Stanton by only three votes. Stanton is on the ballot again this year. - With reporting by Chris Helms Send education reporter Jacob Posner any story ideas or news tips at JPosner@ This article originally appeared on The Enterprise: Brockton School Committee incumbents face packed field in election Solve the daily Crossword

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store