Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

South Dakota rejects tribal IDs for voter registration

Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in South Dakota

South Dakota has the third largest number of Native Americans living on tribal lands, representing 8 percent of the state's population.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

South Dakota lawmakers look like they won't be doing anything this year to help American Indians overcome the structural and socioeconomic barriers that have long contributed to their historically low participation in elections.

Last week, the state House rejected a plan to allow Native Americans to use tribal identification cards as documentation when registering to vote. The Republicans in charge in Pierre cited concern that information on the IDs could not be independently verified by the secretary of state's office and could lead to fraud, since the cards are not state-issued and often do not include a mailing address.

The Democrats who made the proposal said it would boost civic engagement in tribal communities, which have some of the most anemic turnout in the state. They also noted tribal IDs are used in dealings with the federal government, including at airport security checkpoints.


The proposal, which was attached to a larger bill changing voter registration rules, would have included tribal IDs on a list of acceptable forms of identification, such as state-issued driver's licenses and Social Security cards.

Voting by indigenous peoples often lags behind other demographics. Heading into the 2018 midterm, an estimated 34 percent of Native Americans and Alaska Natives older than 18 were not registered — compared to 27 percent of non-Hispanic Whites. And American Indian turnout in some states was as much as 10 percentage points below other racial and ethic groups two years ago, according to the National Congress of American Indians, a voting rights advocacy group.

South Dakota has the third largest number of Native Americans living on tribal lands, representing 8 percent of the state's population.

The Brennan Center for Justice has called the structural obstacles facing Native Americans voters "an often-overlooked crisis in our democracy." Those obstacles include states such as South Dakota that do not recognize tribal IDs for voting purposes as well as a lack of nearby polling locations and drop boxes to return absentee ballots.

A House subcommittee is expected to discuss these structural issues and possible solutions at a hearing Tuesday.


Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less