Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Poverty, isolation among voting barriers for Native Americans

Poverty, isolation among voting barriers for Native Americans

Members of the Navajo Nation have set up camp outside a polling place because their homes can be as much as 100 miles away.

Rick Scibelli/Getty Images

A congressional hearing in Phoenix this week on voting rights and election administration in Arizona provided a stark reminder of the obstacles many Native Americans face just to cast a ballot.

Patty Ferguson-Bohnee, director of the Indian Legal Clinic at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, told members of the House Administration Subcommittee on Elections that to "understand the challenges faced by Native American voters, one must recognize the vast differences in experiences, opportunities and realities facing on-reservation voters."


Among those differences:

Poverty: The poverty rate among Native Americans in Arizona is 36 percent, more than three times the rate of white people in the state, according to the Census Bureau. This leaves many homeless or moving from home to home, which makes it hard to establish a permanent residence from which to vote. Lack of funds along with the poor condition of roads on the 21 reservations in the state make it difficult to get to a polling place.

Nontraditional addresses: Even many of those with permanent homes on the reservation do not have a traditional street address and have no regular mail delivery, Ferguson-Bohnee said. Residents have to travel up to 70 miles in one direction to receive mail. Non-traditional addresses can make it difficult to register to vote or produce identification when trying to vote at a polling place and may make it more likely their registrations will be suspended.

Lack of access: Less than half of homes on tribal lands have reliable broadband access, which can be used to register online. And in 2016, few counties offered voter registration on the reservation. Jonathan Nez, president of the Navajo Nation, testified that some Navajo citizens are required to drive more than 100 miles to register to vote.

Identification barriers: Many on the reservation do not have a driver's license or other traditional form of identification needed to vote under a 2004 voter ID law. The Navajo Nation sued over the issue and a settlement required expanding the acceptable forms of identification to include some forms of tribal ID. But Ferguson-Bohnee testified that those forms of identification have been rejected by poll workers who have not been properly trained.

Stephen Roe Lewis, governor of the Gila River Indiana Community near Phoenix, said despite some improvements only 58 percent of the community's voting-age population is registered to vote.

"Exercising one's right to vote should not be hard to do," Lewis said. "Across the United States, tribal members face unique barriers to voting and out of frustration that can be prevented, sometimes give up on exercising their voting rights."

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less