Failure by the state of South Dakota to file their redistricting plan with the federal government for approval as they are compelled to do, may signal an attack on the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  The action is viewed by some as an attempt to ensure a non-Indian majority in state government in the future.  

The NativeAmerican Times
ACLU files lawsuit against South Dakota for Indian Voting Rights
By Ruth Steinberger

On Tuesday January 30, 2002, a three judge panel in Federal Court for the District of South Dakota in Pierre, SD, heard arguments on the first part of the two part suit, Bone Shirt, et al vs. Hazeltine, et al.  This portion of the suit seeks either a temporary or permanent injunction against the implementation of the recently enacted redistricting plan for the State of South Dakota. ... ...

Failure by the state of South Dakota to file their redistricting plan with the federal government for approval as they are compelled to do, may signal an attack on the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  The action is viewed by some as an attempt to ensure a non-Indian majority in state government in the future.   Many tribal members and activists are viewing this action as a serious assault on minority voting rights by the  Republican legislature.

... ... ... Recent actions by the State of South Dakota

challenge provisions of that act intended to ensure voting rights for Indians, and represents the first time in at least a decade that a state that is compelled to file for such approval has effectively refused to do so.   Refusals to comply with this act were common in the sixties following enactment of the Voting Rights Act.   Currently, American Indians are underrepresented in both houses of the state legislature.

A second part of the suit is aimed at the actual plan itself, which fails to create an additional Indian majority voting district causing nearly 6,000 Indians to vote in a white majority district that has never elected any Indian legislators and is unlikely to do so, while placing an excessively large number of Indians in a neighboring voting district.  Due to a documented history of racism affecting voting rights, South Dakota is one of 16 states that must file for approval prior to implementation of their redistricting plan for Shannon and Todd counties.  A small number of states including SouthDakota must file for approval for only a portion of the state, rather than filing for approval for the redistricting plan covering the entire state.  The state is compelled to file for approval any time redistricting covers Shannon and Todd counties.

John Guhin, Assistant Attorney General for the state of South Dakota, argued that the state is not obligated to file because the district remained unchanged since the last redistricting a decade ago.  He did acknowledge that the district had in fact changed, but he then contended that the change was too minor to be significant ... ... Guhin said that the redistricting plan, as approved by the state, was drafted for the good of Indians themselves.

Bryan Sells, attorney for the ACLU argued that that implementation of a new statewide redistricting plan is a change and thereby the state is obligated to file according to federal law.  ...

Essentially, if the state's arguments are upheld, it would be the right of the state to judge whether or not it is required to comply with the Department of Justice, and if so under what provision.