Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Tribes secure big voting rights win as North Dakota backs down

Standing Rock Sioux Reservation

An address requirement in North Dakota has disenfranchised thousands of people living on reservations, including the Standing Rock Sioux, who were a party to the lawsuit.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

North Dakota has agreed to a significant expansion of voting rights for Native Americans.

Residents of reservations will be able to register and vote this year even if they don't comply with the state's restrictive voter identification law, which requires voters to have an ID with a residential address, under an agreement announced late Thursday.

The deal marks a significant and stunningly sudden victory for the American Indian electorate. It settles the latest lawsuit brought by tribes and voters, who have been arguing for four years that the law is unconstitutional. North Dakota agreed to the settlement only hours after a federal judge rejected the state's bid to get the case dismissed and set a trial date for May.


The address requirement has disenfranchised thousands of people living on reservations, because the state does not assign street numbers to their homes.

The state has maintained the rule was designed to deter voting fraud, but Native Americans see it as a straightforward bid to suppress their reliably Democratic vote.

The Republican Legislature imposed the restriction seven years ago, months after Democrat Heidi Heitkamp was elected to the Senate in an upset aided by strong support from Native Americans. With the new law in place, she lost two years ago, and every current statewide elected official who identifies with a party, including all three members of Congress, are Republicans.

Native Americans constitute about 5 percent of the state's population, making them a crucial voting bloc in close contests. Different tribes have been challenging the law in federal court for almost four years.

Under the new consent decree, the secretary of state has promised to ensure Native Americans may vote if they do not have a street address or don't know what it is. (Some buildings on reservations have formal addresses but no signage, and almost all residents rely on post office boxes and have those numbers on their tribal IDs.)

The settlement requires the state to inform voters and poll workers of the changes. And for this fall, it will allow people at the polls to vote after marking their homes on a map, which the state must then use to generate a physical address — which, in turn, can be made part of future tribal ID cards.

A similar system was used on some reservations on Election Day 2018, after the ID law survived an earlier court challenge, and tribal officials issued handwritten identification cards to people when they arrived at polling places and pointed to their residences on a map.

Secretary of State Al Jaeger, an independent, also agreed to work with the state Transportation Department to issue free IDs on every reservation at least a month before each statewide election, and to press the Legislature to reimburse tribal governments $5,000 before each election for the administrative costs of coming up with addresses and IDs.

The agreement was detailed by the Campaign Legal Center, which presses an array of litigation to promote ballot access and rein in money's influence on politics, and the Native American Rights Fund. They represented the Spirit Lake Nation and Standing Rock Sioux, two of the most prominent tribes in North Dakota, and six Native Americans who were also plaintiffs.


Read More

Trump’s Racism Carries No Consequences—And That’s Scary

Trump's unchecked racism reveals just how fragile the state of American democracy is.

Cage Rivera/Rewire News Group

Trump’s Racism Carries No Consequences—And That’s Scary

Donald Trump posted a video online depicting the Obamas as apes.

This isn’t shocking—or at least it shouldn’t be. Trump has built an entire political career out of saying the quiet racist part out loud and then daring the country to do something about it.

Keep Reading Show less
Sexual Assault Thrives in Silence

Co-founder of the United Farm Workers Association, Dolores Huerta, August 16, 2025 in Austin, Texas.

.(Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

Sexual Assault Thrives in Silence

Dolores Huerta broke her silence 60 years after Cesar Chavez had assaulted her. In her statement, Dolores Huerta said, “I carried this secret for as long as I did because building the movement and securing farmworker rights was my life’s work”. She did not want to hurt the movement.

After 15 years of working with survivors and supporting domestic violence and sexual assault programs, I know this instinct well. Most survivors do not want to rock the boat or damage the reputation of leaders, bosses, or ex-partners. Speaking up can mean destabilizing families, workplaces, and entire communities. Survivors will deny their own pain to protect institutions and the people they care about, especially in oppressed and marginalized communities.

Keep Reading Show less
Constitutional Barriers to Nationalizing Elections
US Capitol
US Capitol

Constitutional Barriers to Nationalizing Elections

In the run-up to the midterms, President Trump continues to call for nationalizing congressional elections. He has sought to initiate the process through executive orders, such as one proposing to set “a ballot receipt deadline of Election Day for all methods of voting.” The words and spirit of the United States Constitution—the bedrock textualism and originalism of conservative constitutional interpretation—say he can’t nationalize elections.

Unlike some consequential constitutional questions, it’s not a close call.

Keep Reading Show less
Unpacking War Powers in the U.S.-Iran Conflict: Who Decides When America Goes to War?

Smoke billows after overnight airstrikes on oil depots on March 8, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Unpacking War Powers in the U.S.-Iran Conflict: Who Decides When America Goes to War?

What Is The War Powers Resolution of 1973?

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law enacted by Congress that limits the U.S. president’s ability to wage or escalate military operations overseas. Passed on November 7, 1973 amid the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution reasserts Congress’ constitutional power “to declare war” and “to raise and support Armies.” A key provision of the War Powers Resolution requires the president to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours of military deployment in the absence of an official declaration of war by Congress detailing:

  • The circumstances requiring U.S. forces;
  • The constitutional or legislative justification for the president’s actions;
  • The estimated duration of U.S. involvement in the hostilities.

If Congress does not formally declare war or enact special authorization for continuation of the U.S’ involvement in a conflict within 60 days of the report’s submission, the president must withdraw U.S. troops from the hostilities. If Congress does declare war, the president is instructed under the War Powers Resolution to report to Congress periodically on the status of the hostilities no less than once every 6 months.

Keep Reading Show less