{"id":40174,"date":"2026-06-02T18:32:30","date_gmt":"2026-06-02T23:32:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/unitedresourceconnection.org\/cannon-ball-nd-58528\/supreme-court-ruling-robs-native-americans-of-silent-partner-in-legislative-redistricting\/"},"modified":"2026-06-02T18:32:40","modified_gmt":"2026-06-02T23:32:40","slug":"supreme-court-ruling-robs-native-americans-of-silent-partner-in-legislative-redistricting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/unitedresourceconnection.org\/cannon-ball-nd-58528\/supreme-court-ruling-robs-native-americans-of-silent-partner-in-legislative-redistricting\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court ruling robs Native Americans of \u2018silent partner\u2019 in legislative redistricting"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/span><\/div>
\"John<\/a><\/p>\n

John P. \u201cPat\u201d Flynn poses for a photo in the South Dakota Senate in January 1971. (Courtesy of Sean Flynn)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gutted a key provision of a voting rights law won\u2019t affect South Dakota\u2019s legislative districts until 2031 \u2014 but Native American voting rights advocates aren\u2019t waiting to worry.<\/p>\n

The decision in Louisiana v. Callais dismantled guardrails protecting the electoral power of Black, Hispanic and other racial minority voters enshrined in the Voting Rights Act, a 1965 law barring racial discrimination in voting.<\/p>\n

The 6-3 decision effectively nullified a provision called Section 2, which had required states to draw electoral maps giving racial minorities a fair chance to elect their preferred candidates.<\/p>\n

Greg Lembrich, legal director for Four Directions, a South Dakota based Native American voting rights advocacy organization, is concerned about the ruling.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a layer of protection that\u2019s now been taken down by the U.S. Supreme Court and makes it that much easier to deprive minority voters of the full weight of their voting rights,\u201d Lembrich said, \u201cand a lot harder for voters with diluted voting rights to challenge those decisions in court.\u201d<\/p>\n

South Dakota has a strained relationship with the federal law. Some of the state\u2019s redistricting changes in the last 50 years stem from requirements enforced at the federal level \u2014 and a majority of Native Americans who\u2019ve earned seats in the Legislature have been elected from districts influenced by the law.<\/p>\n

What the ruling means for South Dakota<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court ruling has already set off redistricting battles in some states that have multiple members of the U.S. House of Representatives. That won\u2019t happen in South Dakota, where the state\u2019s small population entitles it to only one member of the House.<\/p>\n

But the Legislature is required by the state constitution to redraw its districts every 10 years after the census. When that happens next in 2031, advocates will lose the legal tools they used to create and defend Native-majority districts. Under the old Section 2 standard, a map could be challenged by showing it had a discriminatory effect \u2014 even without proving intent. Now, challengers must prove lawmakers deliberately discriminated.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s very hard to prove intentional discrimination,\u201d Lembrich said. \u201cPeople who are doing something to intentionally discriminate usually don\u2019t admit that\u2019s what they\u2019re doing.\u201d<\/p>\n

In South Dakota, Section 2 caused the creation of split districts \u2014 single districts divided into subdistricts, each electing one state House member, with both sharing one at-large state senator. Districts 26 and 28, which include the Rosebud, Lower Brule, Crow Creek, Cheyenne River and Standing Rock reservations, are split districts.<\/p>\n

The structure gives Native American voters the power to elect a candidate of their choice without stripping non-Native voters of the same opportunity, Lembrich said. District 27, which includes the Pine Ridge Reservation, has a majority Native American voting population.<\/p>\n

Former Republican lawmaker Jim Bolin, who represented the Canton area, served on the 2011 and 2021 redistricting committees \u2014 both of which produced district maps that avoided litigation. He said lawmakers on the committees in both years went \u201cout of their way\u201d to include Native American voters and \u201censure the Native American population would be able to win an election.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2011, the Legislature expanded District 26 to include the Crow Creek and Lower Brule reservations.<\/p>\n

In 2021, the Legislature consolidated a large urban Native population in northern Rapid City into one district rather than splitting it, and a Democrat was elected from District 32 for the first time in 18 years. The Legislature also expanded District 26 to follow Crow Creek reservation lines rather than county lines, and the voting population for Native-heavy districts was kept lower to avoid diluting Native voters.<\/p>\n

Lembrich isn\u2019t sure legislative leaders will feel compelled to redraw those districts dramatically in 2031. Although many of the Native Americans who have been elected to the Legislature have been Democrats, Republicans currently hold 97 of the Legislature\u2019s 105 positions.<\/p>\n

\u201cRepublicans consistently have a super majority in both chambers,\u201d Lembrich said. \u201cThey don\u2019t need the extra seats. It may not be worth the PR and the lawsuits of trying to change it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bolin expects lawmakers will consider eliminating split districts from a \u201cconsistency standpoint.\u201d But the decision will depend on lawmakers elected in 2030.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou could have a totally different group of people in the Legislature with a completely different viewpoint on how this should be handled,\u201d Bolin said.<\/p>\n

OJ Semans, co-executive director of Four Directions and a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, plans to keep an eye on 2031 redistricting.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe know that if there is equal access, the turnout in Indian Country is going to improve,\u201d Semans said. \u201cEvery time we turn around, there\u2019s a new barrier to figure out how we\u2019ll get by this.\u201d<\/p>\n

A fraught history<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Voting Rights Act didn\u2019t directly affect South Dakota until 1975, when Shannon (now Oglala Lakota) and Todd counties, home to the Pine Ridge and Rosebud reservations, became subject to Section 5 of the law.<\/p>\n

Section 5 required the approval of the federal Department of Justice before any election or voting related changes were made to jurisdictions that fell under its purview because of a history of voter discrimination. While that section still stands, the Supreme Court effectively nullified it in its 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder.<\/p>\n

Bill Janklow, who was serving as the state\u2019s attorney general, called the law a \u201cfacial absurdity\u201d that was \u201cplaguing\u201d the state. Under federal pressure, South Dakota created its first majority-Native American legislative district in 1981. Native Americans made up about 86% of the district\u2019s voting population.<\/p>\n

The new district, which included Shannon and Todd counties, sent two Native American lawmakers to the House: Tom Shortbull and Dick Hagen, believed to be the first Native American lawmakers living on a reservation at the time of their election, according to The Associated Press. Paula Valandra was elected to the Senate from that district in 1990.<\/p>\n

The Legislature created its first split district in 1991, District 28, \u201cto protect minority voting rights,\u201d state law says, for Native American and tribal members of the Cheyenne River and Standing Rock Sioux tribes.<\/p>\n

The Legislature then tried to dismantle its own reform by eliminating the split district, but a federal court struck down that action. Native American lawyer and lawmaker Tom Van Norman was elected from District 28A in 2000.<\/p>\n

The Legislature then packed Native American voters into District 27 in 2001 \u2014 making it one of the most populated districts in the state, with 90% of its voting-age population being Native American \u2014 while neighboring District 26\u2019s voting-age population dropped to about 30% Native American.<\/p>\n

By 2005, a federal court found the 2001 map violated Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The federal district court drew its own map, affirmed by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006. Those court-ordered districts \u2014 26A and B, 27 and 28A and B \u2014 remain the structural foundation of Native American representation in the Legislature today.<\/p>\n

Bolin said the Voting Rights Act was a \u201csilent partner in the room\u201d in 2011 and 2021 redistricting.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere was a strong feeling on the part of the Legislature that they didn\u2019t want to get sued again,\u201d Bolin said.<\/p>\n

Native American representation in the statehouse<\/strong><\/p>\n

One of South Dakota\u2019s first Native American lawmakers was not a result of the Voting Rights Act.<\/p>\n

John P. \u201cPat\u201d Flynn, a Rosebud tribal member, was the first Native American elected to the state Senate, according to his son Sean Flynn, who is a history professor at Dakota Wesleyan University and wrote his father\u2019s biography. The Republican was elected in 1970 to represent District 25, which included Gregory, Tripp and Todd counties.<\/p>\n

Pat survived 82 combat missions and was a prisoner in the Korean War before returning to Gregory County, where he became \u201ca bit of a legend,\u201d Sean said, respected by Native and non-Native residents alike.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor him to run for office and really represent an unrepresented population at that time, that hadn\u2019t had a voice in District 25, was important to him,\u201d Sean said.<\/p>\n

Sean said districts with majority Native voting populations allow Native candidates a platform beyond being seen as a \u201cone trick pony\u201d concerned only with tribal issues.<\/p>\n

\u201cSomeday, there is going to be an American Indian governor of South Dakota, and that person just might get their opportunity because of legislative districts formed under the Voting Rights Act,\u201d Sean said. \u201cThey\u2019ll not just represent American Indians, but they\u2019re here to represent the broader public.\u201d<\/p>\n

Former lawmaker Ron Volesky is a member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe who ran for governor in the 2002 Democratic primary. First elected as a Republican in 1981 to represent the Huron-area District 21, he served alongside lawmakers elected in districts influenced by the Voting Rights Act and said those relationships helped him \u201cbe a better legislator.\u201d<\/p>\n

Volesky was born on the Standing Rock Reservation, but was adopted as a child and grew up in Huron.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was very important for me to understand people who come from those types of environments, how they view certain issues, what their values and cultural norms are,\u201d Volesky said. \u201cI think that was not only important for me, but very important for the non-Native legislators.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Voting Rights Act\u2019s impact extends beyond Native lawmakers, Lembrich said. It also helped elect non-Native lawmakers who drew wide support from Native voters, such as Democrats Larry Lucas of Mission, within the Rosebud Reservation, and Oren Lesmeister of Parade, within the Cheyenne River Reservation.<\/p>\n

The Voting Rights Act has helped \u201cfoster a culture of political leadership\u201d in tribal and rural areas, Volesky added, citing examples of Native American lawmakers elected from reservations.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt had a profound effect on the Native political movement and growth in South Dakota,\u201d Volesky said. \u201cWithout that, you may have had a Pat Flynn, you may have had a Ron Volesky, but you would not have had a Shortbull or Hagen or Van Norman or Valandra. You just wouldn\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n

Native American lawmakers<\/strong><\/p>\n

South Dakota state lawmakers of Native American descent have included the following, with the district they last served, tribal affiliation and years of service:<\/p>\n