South Dakota

A number of the voting changes that South Dakota enacted after it became covered by Section 5 in 1975, but which it refused to submit for preclearance, had the potential for diluting Indian voting strength, including and especially the state's 2001 legislative redistricting plan. In 2001, South Dakota enacted a law dividing the state into thirty-five legislative districts, each of which elected one senator and two members of the state house of representatives. In the 2001 plan, the boundaries of District 27, which included Shannon and Todd Counties, were altered so that Indians comprised 90% of the district, while the district was one of the most overpopulated in the state. As was apparent, Indians were "packed," or over-concentrated, in the new District 27. Had Indians been "unpacked," they could have made up a majority in an additional, neighboring house district. Despite enacting these changes in voting, the state refused to submit the 2001 plan to the Justice Department for preclearance. Alfred Bone Shirt and three other Indian residents from Districts 26 and 27, with the assistance of the ACLU, sued the state in December 2001 for its failure to submit its redistricting plan for preclearance. The plaintiffs also claimed that the plan unnecessarily packed Indian voters in violation of Section 2 and deprived them of an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. In 2004, a federal court invalidated the state's 2001 legislative plan because it discriminated against Indian voters by packing Indians into a single district in order to remove their ability to elect a candidate of choice to the state legislature. In its opinion, the court also found that there was "substantial evidence that South Dakota official excluded Indians from voting and holding office."