The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday invited the federal government to weigh in on a North Dakota voting rights dispute. Two local Republican officials aim to block new voting subdistricts for Native Americans after Secretary of State Michael Howe reversed his stance in the litigation.

North Dakota Voting Dispute : Federal Solicitor General's Involvement

In an order list, the high court asked the U.S. Solicitor General to "file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States." This development highlights the ongoing North Dakota voting dispute involving subdistricts.

Legal Battle Over Voting Subdistricts

Charles Walen and Paul Henderson, local Republican Party officials, filed a notice with the Supreme Court in January, seeking to overturn a lower court's decision. The ruling upheld two new House subdistricts designed to prevent Native American voter dilution, drawn along the boundaries of the Fort Berthold and Turtle Mountain Indian reservations.

Last month, Secretary of State Michael Howe called the tribes' litigation stance "unconscionable" and requested the Supreme Court to vacate and remand the Voting Rights Act (VRA) dispute. Howe argued the state could not defend the lawsuit's basis.

North Dakota Voting Dispute : Arguments for Vacating the Decision

Howe contended that vacating the district court's decision would clarify that a state's attempt to comply with the VRA cannot excuse unconstitutional race discrimination. If the high court rejects this request, Howe seeks a ruling in favor of Walen and Henderson.

Walen and Henderson sued North Dakota officials in February 2022, alleging the new subdistricts violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause by being race-based without compelling state interest.

Compliance with Voting Rights Act Challenged

The plaintiffs argue that compliance with the VRA cannot justify violating the equal protection clause when creating election maps. They further assert the North Dakota redistricting committee failed to meet the Gingles preconditions, a three-part test established by the Supreme Court in 1986 to determine if minority voting rights are protected.

North Dakota Voting Dispute : Reaction from Native American Tribes

The Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation, intervenor defendants in the case, expressed disappointment at the Attorney General's changed stance. MHA Chairman Mark N. Fox emphasized the tribe's need to protect its interests and urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The MHA Nation worked with the North Dakota Legislature during the 2021 redistricting process to ensure compliance with the U.S. Constitution and the VRA. Fox noted that the tribe and the Attorney General's Office had previously defended the new subdistricts together.

Legal Representation and Arguments

Walen and Henderson are represented by Robert W. Harms of The Harms Group and attorneys from Evenson Sanderson PC. North Dakota officials, including Gov. Doug Burgum and the Secretary of State's Office, are represented by the North Dakota Attorney General's Office and Bakke Grinolds Wiederholt.

The intervenors, including the MHA Nation and two members, are represented by the Native American Rights Fund, the Campaign Legal Center, and attorney Bryan L. Sells. The nation contends that the North Dakota Legislature's redistricting did not prioritize race over traditional criteria and that the new subdistricts comply with the VRA.

North Dakota Voting Dispute : Conclusion

As the Supreme Court awaits the Solicitor General's brief, the outcome of the North Dakota voting dispute remains uncertain. The high court's decision could have significant implications for how states address racial considerations in redistricting while complying with federal voting rights laws.