Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Redistricting gets into gear Monday. Will South Dakota's new legislative district map look fair and
Redistricting gets into gear Monday. Will South Dakota’s new legislative district map look fair and reasonable, for a change?When we talk about redistricting in this state, we should start with the plain fact that Republican overrepresentation in the legislature has got to be addressed. The numbers are actually ridiculous. Right now Republicans in the state make up 48% of total registrations, Democrats account for 27% and independents are 24%. Yet in the legislature, Pubs hold 90% of the seats, Dems hold 10% and there are 0 independents. True, the Republican registration advantage is enormous, but the fact is that in the November, 2020, general election, Biden got 36% of the vote in South Dakota. Those Biden voters, if they were mostly Democrats and some independents, are represented by only 11 seats out of 105 in our statehouse.
Amy Scott-Stoltz, president of South Dakota’s League of Women Voters, says that Republican registrations have held steady at 49% for three decades, but their numbers in the legislature have gone from 65 percent to 90% during that period. Scott-Stoltz is leading a petition drive called Drawn Together SD that would put an amendment on the state ballot next year calling for an independent redistricting commission to be established. The commission would not be able to seat a majority of any party and would be required to publish a report explaining the hows and whys of its redistricting plan.
Meantime, as the existing redistricting committee begins its current process Monday, when it will base its new legislative map using results from the 2020 census, ACLU South Dakota intends to keep a watchful eye on the proceedings. In a press release sent to The Standard this morning, ACLU headlines its statement by saying it wants to see “Fair, Equal Representation and More Public Listening Sessions in Redistricting Process.”
Here’s ACLU’s full statement:
The idea of “one person, one vote” is one of democracy’s greatest strengths. Key to achieving this democratic ideal is redistricting, the once-in-a-decade opportunity to redraw the districts that make up the legislative map in South Dakota.
Ahead of the House & Senate’s Joint Redistricting Committee meeting on Monday, the ACLU is reminding legislators that they have an obligation to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and complying with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The ACLU is committed to monitoring their work to ensure fair and equal representation for everyone – particularly for the state’s Indigenous population.
“When redistricting is conducted properly, district lines are redrawn to reflect population changes and racial diversity,” said Candi Brings Plenty, ACLU of South Dakota Indigenous justice organizer. “But too often, redistricting is used as a political tool to manipulate the outcome of elections, a widespread, undemocratic practice that’s stifling the voice of too many voters. Indigenous communities, in particular, have faced numerous obstacles to meaningful participation in the political process, including the redistricting process.”
The committee must be especially vigilant when redrawing South Dakota’s maps so that the concerns of people who belong to racial, ethnic and minority groups are not overlooked. The ACLU recommends that the redistricting committee schedule additional public listening sessions on reservations and engage in consultation with tribal leaders. Failure to do so could lead to discriminatory district maps that may expose the state of South Dakota to costly litigation.
That’s what happened in Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, a federal case in which a panel of judges found the state discriminated against Indigenous South Dakotans by not thoroughly involving them in the 2001 redistricting process. Because the current hearing locations do not include reservations, public testimony from Indigenous people could be even more limited than what occurred in Bone Shirt.
“There is a real concern that public testimony in the locations selected, which are exclusively outside reservations, will result in even fewer Indigenous people providing input – if not eliminating it entirely – in some regions,” Brings Plenty said. “Our state is leading the way across the board in our legislative leadership. Let’s continue to lead the way and elevate all South Dakotans to be seen, heard, represented and given equitable access with opportunities for our tribal nations to give public comment with their tribal communities.”
Ahead of the House & Senate’s Joint Redistricting Committee meeting on Monday, the ACLU is reminding legislators that they have an obligation to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and complying with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The ACLU is committed to monitoring their work to ensure fair and equal representation for everyone – particularly for the state’s Indigenous population.
“When redistricting is conducted properly, district lines are redrawn to reflect population changes and racial diversity,” said Candi Brings Plenty, ACLU of South Dakota Indigenous justice organizer. “But too often, redistricting is used as a political tool to manipulate the outcome of elections, a widespread, undemocratic practice that’s stifling the voice of too many voters. Indigenous communities, in particular, have faced numerous obstacles to meaningful participation in the political process, including the redistricting process.”
The committee must be especially vigilant when redrawing South Dakota’s maps so that the concerns of people who belong to racial, ethnic and minority groups are not overlooked. The ACLU recommends that the redistricting committee schedule additional public listening sessions on reservations and engage in consultation with tribal leaders. Failure to do so could lead to discriminatory district maps that may expose the state of South Dakota to costly litigation.
That’s what happened in Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, a federal case in which a panel of judges found the state discriminated against Indigenous South Dakotans by not thoroughly involving them in the 2001 redistricting process. Because the current hearing locations do not include reservations, public testimony from Indigenous people could be even more limited than what occurred in Bone Shirt.
“There is a real concern that public testimony in the locations selected, which are exclusively outside reservations, will result in even fewer Indigenous people providing input – if not eliminating it entirely – in some regions,” Brings Plenty said. “Our state is leading the way across the board in our legislative leadership. Let’s continue to lead the way and elevate all South Dakotans to be seen, heard, represented and given equitable access with opportunities for our tribal nations to give public comment with their tribal communities.”
Read more: https://www.sdstandardnow.com/home/redistricting-gets-into-gear-monday-will-south-dakotas-new-legislative-district-map-look-fair-and-reasonable-for-a-change