Lower Brule Sioux Tribe et al v. Lyman County et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
CENTRAL DIVISION
LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE, NEIL
PIERRE RUSSELL, INDIVIDUAL MEMBER
OF THE LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE;
STEPHANIE BOLMAN, INDIVIDUAL
MEMBER OF THE LOWER BRULE SIOUX
TRIBE; AND BEN JANIS, INDIVIDUAL
MEMBER OF THE LOWER BRULE SIOUX
TmBE;
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LYMAN COUNTY, LYMAN COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, BRIAN
KRAUS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
LYMAN COUNTY COMMISSIONER; LESLIE
REUER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
LYMAN COUNTY COMMISSIONER; ZANE
REIS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
LYMAN COUNTY COMMISSIONER; RYAN
HUFFMAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
LYMAN COUNTY COMMISSIONER; JARED
SCHELSKE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS LYMAN COUNTY COMMISSIONER;
AND DEB HALVERSON, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS LYMAN COUNTY AUDITOR;
Defendants.
3:22-CV-03008-RAL
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION DEPENDING ON
ADOPTION OF AN APPROPRIATE
REMEDIAL PLAN
Plaintiffs Neil Russell, Stephanie Bolman, and Ben Janis are members of the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe ("the Tribe") and registered voters in Lyman County, South Dakota. Doc. 1 at 4. The
Tribe, Russell, Bolman, and Janis (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed a motion for preliminary
1
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 1 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

injunction to compel Defendants Lyman County, the Lyman County Board of Commissioners and
its individual members, and Lyman County Auditor Deb Halverson (collectively "Defendants") to
implement a new redistricting plan for county commissioner elections before the November 8,
2022 general election. Doc. 3. Without relief, Plaintiffs allege that the voting power of tribal
members will be diluted in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act ("VRA"), 52 U.S.C. § 10301.
Doc. 1 at 17. This Court determines that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim
and grants the motion for preliminary injunction depending on the adoption of an appropriate
remedial plan.
I. Procedural History and Preliminary Findings of Fact
On June 7, 2022, this Court issued a scheduling order to facilitate timely resolution of the
case, under which the last brief would be submitted on July 12. Doc. 31. The Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, Doc. 34, and brief opposing the motion for preliminary injunction, Doc. 37,
arguing among other things that this Court cannot grant Plaintiffs relief this close to the November
8, 2022 election. Doc. 34; Doc. 35 at 10-11; Doc. 37 at 11-21. On July 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs
filed a motion to decide preliminaiy injunction on the record. Doc. 38. Both parties filed
Declarations of Affidavits to submit material into the record. Doc. 5; Doc. 6; Doc. 7; Doc. 8; Doc.
36.
On July 26 and July 27, 2022, this Court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion for
preliminary injunction, during which it orally denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and
denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Decide the Preliminary Injunction Motion on the Record. Doc.
32; Doc. 48. The Tribe then presented five witnesses: Tribal Chairman Clyde Estes, Professor
Loren Collingwood, Timothy Azure, and Professor Daniel McCool by video deposition since he
was on a family vacation to Ireland, and on rebuttal Brandon Campea. Doc. 48. Defendants also
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 2 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

called five witnesses: Tribal Public Relations Director Christian Skunk, South Dakota Secretary
of State officials Kea Warne and Suzanne Wetz, Lyman County Auditor Debra Halverson, and
South Dakota State Representative Rebecca Reimer. Id. This Court now turns to Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction and makes the following preliminary findings of fact based on
the testimony, exhibits, and records that appear not subject to genuine dispute.*
Lyman County ("the County") consists of 1,641,94 square miles in southcentral South
Dakota. Doc. 1 at 5. The County is bounded by the Missouri River on its eastern and northeastern
borders and the White River on its southern border. See id. Most of the Lower Brule Reservation
("the Reservation") is in a relatively compact geographical area in the northeast comer of Lyman
County. Doc. 1 at 5; Doc. 7 at 2. The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe is a federally recognized Indian
Tribe with some 3,410 enrolled members. Doc. 1 at 3. Roughly one-halfofthe enrolled members
presently live on the Reservation. See id^ at 6-7.
According to the 2020 census and County records, there are 3,718 people in Lyman
County, of which 2,622 are of voting age, and approximately 2,185 are registered voters. Doc. 1
at 6; Doc, 11 at 15, 19. The County's population has decreased by about 5% since 2010, with the
non-Hispanic white population undergoing the largest decrease. Doc. 1 at 6. In contrast, the
Native American population has increased by over 21% since 2010. Doc, 1 at6. Native Americans
constituted 46.9% of the County's total population in 2020 and non-Hispanic Native Americans
constituted 39.2% of the voting age population. Doc. 1 at 6-7. Non-Hispanic whites comprised
58.4% of the voting age population in 2020. Doc. 1 at 6.
The preliminary factual findings stated in this Opinion and Order are drawn from testimony given
during the July 26 and July 27, 2022 motion hearing if there is no citation to the record or to an
exhibit for those findings.
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 3 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

The County elects five county commissioners who serve four-year terms. Doc. 1 at 7;
Doc. 7 at 3; Doc. 11 at 2. Since 1992, the commissioners have been elected at-large; that is, since
1992, Lyman County has not had districts within which individual commissioners run. Doc. 1 at
7; Doc. 7 at 3. Three commissioners are elected in gubernatorial election years or midterm election
years, and two commissioners are elected in presidential election years. Doc. 1 at 7. According
to testimony from Lyman County Auditor Debra Halverson, the Board of Commissioners' ("the
Commission") meeting minutes from around the time it adopted an at-large districting plan
indicated that the plan was adopted so that the Lyman County auditor could avoid the difficult task
of determining which voters belonged in which county commissioner districts. However, Auditor
Halverson believed that the Commission may also have preferred an at-large plan because it was
difficult to recruit candidates for single-member commissioner districts around that time.2
The County is divided into seven voting precincts labeled presently as precincts 1, 4, 6, 7,
9, 12, and 13. Hearing Exhibit ("HE") C at 12; HE 4. The Lower Brule Reservation includes
Precinct 1, where voting occurs on the Reservation at the Golden Buffalo Convention Center, as
well as parts of Precinct 4 (where voting takes place off-reservation at the Oacoma Community
Center) and Precinct 6 (where voting takes place off-reservation at the Reliance United Methodist
Church). See HE 4. The Chairman for the Lower Brule Tribe is Clyde Estes. He testified at the
preliminary injunction hearing that no Native American has ever been elected to a Lyman County
2 Lyman County Auditor Halverson testified at length during the preliminary injunction
evidentiary hearing. She is not originally from Lyman County but moved to Lyman County in
2005 and began working at the county auditor's office in 2014. During the motion hearing, this
Court questioned her as to her knowledge about why the County's Board of Commissioners
adopted a single county-wide district model beginning in 1992, and Auditor Halverson earnestly
answered the Court's questions. That is, she did not present herself as someone with first-hand
knowledge of events in Lyman County in 1992 in response to the Court's questioning but offered
information helpful to this Court.
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 4 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

position and that the Tribe experiences poor voter turnout in such elections because tribal members
feel as if their voices simply are not heard. See also Doc. 1 at 16; Doc. 7 at 3; Doc. 11 at 2, 10-
11.
None of the County's five current commissioners work full-time for the County. The
County Auditor informally serves as the Commission's secretary, keeping the Commission's
minutes and creating its agenda upon request. Before the October 19, 2021 Commission meeting,
Cody Russell, Vice Chairman for the Tribe, asked County Auditor Halverson for time at the
Commission's next public meeting to discuss redistricting, and Halverson placed that matter on
the agenda. South Dakota law gives boards of county commissioners the responsibility of
redistricting for commissioner elections following a census. SDCL § 7-8-10.
At the Commission's public meeting on October 19, 2021, as reflected in the Commission
meeting minutes, Russell and the Tribe's Public Relations Director Christian Skunk petitioned the
Commission to replace its at-large election system with one in which commissioners would be
elected district-by-district. HE N at 3; HE 5 at 3; Doc. 1 at 8-9; Doc. 7 at 3; Doc. 11 at 2. Russell
proposed a redistricting plan creating five single-member electoral districts, two of which
(Districts 1 and 2 under his numbering scheme) would have a majority Native American electorate.
Doc. 1 at 8-9, 12; Doc. 7 at 3-^, Russell believed that his plan would prevent the dilution of
Native American voting power that occurred in at-large elections, which he submitted was a
violation of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Doc. 1 at 8-9; Doc. 7 at 3-4. The Commission's
minutes from the October 19, 2021 meeting stated that it was "waiting on complete 2020 census
data and will look into the matter over the course of the next month." HE N at 3, HE 5 at 3. The
parties dispute when the Commission had necessary census data, with Plaintiffs asserting that
Defendants had access to the data in August 2021 and Defendants countering that not all necessary
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 5 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

census data was available to the County until around the end of 2021 or into early 2022. At any
rate, the Commission listened to Vice Chairman Russell, took his presentation seriously, and
enlisted legal advice and assistance from attorney Sara Frankenstein3 of Gunderson, Palmer,
Nelson & Ashmore, LLP, after the October 19, 2021, meeting.
The next public meeting at which the Commission discussed redistricting took place on
November 16, 2021. HE O at 3; HE 5 at 7; Doc. I at 9; Doc. 7 at 4. The Commission's minutes
state that attorney Frankenstein and Vice Chairman Russell attended, that Russell "presented a
map endorsed by the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe for the commissioners to consider in regards to the
request for the Commission to move back to a commissioner district format[,]" and that "the tribe
would offer assistance in the event the county moves to districts and vacancies needed to be filled."
HE 0 at 3; HE 5 at 7. Russell also provided the Commission with a memorandum dated November
2 addressing the Gingles factors and attached initial findings from Dr. Loren Collingwood on
racially polarized voting in Lyman County. HE M. At that meeting, Russell recalled being told
that the Commission did not intend to adopt the Tribe's proposed five-district redistricting plan
but was considering a plan that divided the County into two, multi-member districts. Doc. 1 at 9;
Doc. 7 at 4. At that time, SDCL § 7-8-10 did not allow a county to divide itself into two multi-
member districts such as contemplated by the Commission. Doc. 1 at 9; Doc. 11 at 3; Doc.35 at
2; Doc. 37 at 2.
At the December 21, 2021 Commission meeting, the topic of redistricting appears in the
minutes under "Other Items" with a notation that County Auditor Halverson advised "more
3 Ms. Frankenstein and her firm represent the Defendants in this litigation. This Court understands
that there exists no waiver of attorney-client privilege for the advice she gave but that the privilege
does not extend to comments she and others made publicly, whether during a non-executive
session Commission meeting or elsewhere.
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 6 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

information is still being gathered regarding commission districts so no new information is
available at this time." HE P at 3; HE 5 at 11. A similar notation appears in the minutes for the
January 11,2022 Commission meeting. HE Q at 5; HE 5 at 16.
The Commission acted on the Tribe's redistricting request during its public meeting on
January 25, 2022, attended by Vice Chairman Russell and Tribal Public Relations Director
Christian Skunk in person and by the Commission's attorney Frankenstein by Zoom. HE R at 5;
HE 5 at 21; Doc. 1 at 10. The Commission minutes state:
There has [sic] been questions as to whether the current at-large format is compliant
with the federal Voting Rights Act. The commissioners discussed ways to avoid
potential liability, including districting the county, but the current state statute on
point does not allow a county to move from at-large to districts and would require
a change in legislation. Another possibility is to move to a combination of districts
and at-large, also not currently allowed in state statute. The county is looking into
proposing a bill to the legislature that, if enacted through the legislature this year,
would solve that issue. Auditor Halverson discussed the administrative work that
would be involved in getting everything switched over in the short time frame
before petitions are due for the current election cycle. Commissioner Kraus stated
that after reviewing the information, the board feels that moving to commissioner
districts would create better representation for the county as a whole. They have
been (reviewing maps and looking at the best way to apportion districts. Motion
by Kraus, second by Reuer, to move the county to districts using a hybrid option
that will be created through an ordinance to follow, contingent on the state
legislature passing enabling legislation; the districts would have a delayed
implementation to the 2024 election so that the 3 commissioner seats running in
2022 will run at-large, and during the interim the county would like to have a tribe-
appointed liaison for the board. Roll call vote: Kraus - yea, Reuer - yea, Huffman
- yea, Schelske - no, Reis - yea. Motion carried. Chairmen [sic] Reis then made
the following statement: "While we understand this may not be the most desired
option for everyone in the county, the last few months have been spent exploring
every route and the fact of the matter is that this is the best policy we can enact to
ensure the equality of all county residents and to make sure all residents are fully
represented. We look forward to working with our tribal liaison until the districts
are effective. At which point, we hope everyone has an equal voice in the county."
HERat5;HE5at21.
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 7 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

The excerpt in the minutes about SDCL § 7-8-10 forbidding transition from one at-large
district to multiple districts at that time is mistaken. At that time in early 2022, SDCL § 7-8-10
provided:
The board of county commissioners, at its regular meeting in February of each
year ending in the numeral 2, after giving notice by publication for one week in the
official newspapers of the county, shall change the boundaries of the commissioner
districts if such change is necessary in order that each district shall be as regular
and compact in form as practicable and it shall so divide and redistrict its county
that each district may contain as near as possible an equal number of residents, as
determined by the last preceding federal decennial census; or the board may, at its
discretion, choose to have all of its commissioners run at large.
SDCL § 7-8-10 (2021) (emphasis added). Before amendment, the plain language ofSDCL § 7-
8-10 directed a board of county commissioners to change the boundaries of commissioner districts
Defendants continued to assert during the preliminary injunction evidentiary hearing that SDCL
§ 7-8-10 as it existed before amendment effective July 1, 2022, did not allow Lyman County to
redistrict and presented testimony from County Auditor Halverson that the Commission thought
some change was required to SDCL § 7-8-10 regardless of how the County were to redistrict.
Whether SDCL § 7-8-10 allowed redistricting at that time is a legal question, and a court starts
with the language of the statute's text to determine if a plain meaning exists. "We adhere to two
primary rules of statutory construction. The first rule is that the language expressed in the statute
is the paramount consideration. The second rule is that if the words and phrases in the statute have
plain meaning and effect, we should simply declare their meaning and not resort to statutory
construction." Olson v. Butte Cntv. Comm'n, 925 N.W.2d 463, 464 (S.D. 2019) (cleaned up and
citation omitted). "The first step [in a statutory construction case] is to determine whether the
language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the
case. The inquiry ceases if the statutory language is unambiguous and the statutory scheme is
coherent and consistent." Barnhart v. Sipmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438,450 (2002) (cleaned up and
citations omitted). Defendants' argument ignores the plain meaning of the text allowing the board
of commissioners to "redistrict its county that each district may contain [nearly equal residents]."
SDCL § 7-8-10 (2021). Now Auditor Halverson's mistaken belief may have stemmed from what
counsel told her or what she understood counsel to advise. But the very language of the Ordinance
adopted by the Commission belies the Defendants' argument that the pre-amended version of
SDCL § 7-8-10 did not allow a single-district county to redistrict. The Ordinance specifically
provides: "[a]lternatively, if there is no change to SDCL § 7-8-10, Lyman County will be divided
into the following five districts ,..." HE 11. By the time the Commission adopted the Ordinance,
the Commission apparently understood the then-existing version ofSDCL § 7-8-10 to allow an at-
large single-district county to redistrict into multiple single-member districts. Nonetheless, the
Commission preferred a plan that required amending SDCL § 7-8-10 to create two districts, each
of which would elect multiple commissioners running at large.
8
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 8 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

in either of two ways, stating that the board of commissioners I) "shall so divide and redistrict its
county that each district may contain as near as possible an equal number of residents, as
determined by the last preceding federal decennial census; or [2] the board may, at its discretion,
choose to have all of its commissioners run at large." Id.
Around the end of January 2022, the Commission was working with a demographer on
dividing Lyman County into districts for county commissioner elections. The Commission held a
special session on February 3, 2022, which was attended by Vice Chairman Russell and Tribal
Public Relations Director Skunk among others, to consider six different options based on the
demographer's work for county commissioner districts. HE 5 at 22-27. Some options were for
two multi-candidate districts and others were for five separate districts. Id. The Commission
ultimately approved a "hybrid option" creating a two-district plan. HE U; HE 5 at 22, 26. Under
this hybrid plan, a "District 1" would elect two commissioners and contain most of the Lower
Brule Indian Reservation by combining virtually all of Precinct 7 with parts of Precincts 4 and 6,
and a "District 2" would encompass the remainder of Lyman County and elect three
commissioners. HE U; HE 5 at 22,26. The Commission approved a five-district plan akin to what
the Tribe had proposed as a contingent plan in case the Commission's preferred plan could not be
adopted. HE U; HE 5 at 22,27.
On February 4, 2022, Auditor Halverson and Vice Chairman Russell exchanged email
messages in which Russell wrote that he believed the Tribe "did very well" and that the
Commission "did receive us well." HE 6; Doc. 36-1; Doc. 37 at 19. Russell also acknowledged
that all would have to wait for the legislative process to unfold. HE 6. He stated that one of the
Tribe's attorneys "wanted us to put pressure on Lyman County to hurry up the process to be seated
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 9 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

this year. But we think we will be OK. Let's leave well alone and let the situation progress." HE
6; Doc. 36 at 2; Doc. 36-1; Doc. 37 at 19,
Vice Chairman Russell had mistaken what the formal position of the Tribe would be. On
February 9,2022, the Tribal Council of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe adopted Resolution No. 2022-
103, whereby it opposed the two-district hybrid map approved by the Commission. HE A; HE 7
at 2-3. Around this same time, Russell emailed a letter to Auditor Halverson to inform her of the
Tribe's opposition to the Commission's redistricting plan,5 HE 7; Doc. 1 at 11; Doc. 7 at 4; Doc.
8-3. The letter6 argued that the proposed plan would violate § 2 of the VRA and referred the
Commission to the single-member redistricting plan proposed by the Tribe in October 2021. HE
7; Doc. 8-3.
The responsibility to draft the Ordinance setting forth the Commission's redistricting plan
fell to Auditor Halverson. Ordinance 2202-01 ("the Ordinance") was first read at the February 8,
5 At the preliminary injunction hearing. Defendants presented some testimony that it detrimentally
relied on Russell's statements in his February 4 email and that Defendants detrimentally relied
generally on the Tribe's presumed acquiescence to delaying the implementation of a new
redistricting plan until 2024. The passage of a few days between Russell's February 4th email and
when he notified the Commission of the Tribe's opposition to the Commission's redistricting plan
does not support a detrimental reliance claim. Detrimental reliance is an element of promissory
estoppel, which has three elements: "1) the detriment suffered in reliance must be substantial in an
economic sense; 2) the loss to the promisee must have been foreseeable by the promisor; and 3)
the promisee must have acted reasonably in justifiable reliance on the promise made." Hahne v.
Burr, 705 N,W.2d 867, 873 (S.D. 2005) (citation omitted). Here, Defendants cannot establish that
they justifiably relied on any perceived promise by the Tribe to acquiesce to the Commission's
redistricting plan when Vice Chairman Russell emailed the Tribe's opposition to the plan on
February 9th. Further, as recorded in the Commission minutes on January 25, 2022, the
Commission appeared to realize that its preferred plan would encounter Tribal resistance in that
the Commission Chairman acknowledged that delaying redistricting "may not be the most desired
option for everyone in the county" and that the Commission was looking "forward to working with
our tribal liaison until the districts are effective. At which point, we hope everyone has an equal
voice in the county." HE R at 5; HE 5 at 21.
6 The letter itself was not argumentative, and the email exchange between the parties'
representatives at the time reflects a cooperative and respectful tone on both sides.
10
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 10 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

2022 commission meeting where it passed unanimously and had its second reading at the February
22, 2022 meeting where it was unanimously adopted. HE S at 4; HE T at 3-6; HE 5 at 31, 35-38.
The Ordinance laid out two redistricting plans. HE 11; Doc. 1 at 10; Doc. 1-1; Doc. 11 at
3-4. Under the first and preferred plan, Lyman County would be broken into two, multi-member
commissioner districts. HE 11; Doc. 1 at 7; Doc. 1-1; Doc. 11 at 3-4. District 1 would be "[a]ll
of the part of the Lower Brule Reservation lying west of the Missouri River and having a western
boundary [in certain portions of Township 107, Range 74]" (which is to say most of the Lower
Brule Reservation within Lyman County) and would be represented by two commissioners. HE
11; Doc. 1-1; Doc. 11 at 3-4. District 2 would be comprised of the remainder ofLyman County,
including the remainder of the Lower Brule Reservation, and would be represented by three
commissioners. HE 11; Doc. 1-1; Doc. 1 at 7; Doc. 11 at 3-4. Curiously, the Ordinance's
preferred plan contravenes SDCL § 7-8-1 by stating that "one commissioner from District 1 and
two commissioners from District 2 shall run for election at the general election at which the
Governor is elected and one commissioner from District 1 and one commissioner from District 2
shall run for election at the general election at which the President is elected." HE 11 at 2-3.
SDCL § 7-8-1 requires that: "[a]ny commissioner who represents an even-numbered district shall
run for election at the general election at which the President is elected; any commissioner who
represents an odd-numbered or unnumbered district shall run for election at the general election at
which the Governor is elected." Because SDCL § 7-8-1 0 at the time did not allow multi-member
districts, the Ordinance noted that its preferred plan was contingent on the South Dakota legislature
amending SDCL § 7-8-10. HE 11 at 3; Doc. 1 at 10; Doc. 1-1.
If the Legislature did not amend SDCL § 7-8-10, the Ordinance set forth that Lyman
County would be divided into five commissioner districts, each of which would elect a
11
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 11 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

commissioner for a four-year term. HE 11; Doc. 1 at 10; Doc. 1-1; Doc. 1 1 at 3-4. Two of these
districts would encompass most of the County's Native American electorate, and the other three
districts would contain the non-Reservation land where the electorate is overwhelmingly white.
HE 11; Doc. 1 at 10; Doc. 1-1; Doc. 11 at 3-4. Although SDCL § 7-8-10 requires that counties
"in February of each year ending in the numeral 2 ... shall change the boundaries of the
commissioner districts if such change is necessary [based on the census data]," the Ordinance
stated that neither redistricting plan would be implemented until after the general election on
November 8, 2022. HE 11 at 3; Doc. I at 10; Doc. 1-1; Doc. 11 at 3. The Ordinance stated that
the delay was necessary to give the County time to update its voting software, TotalVote, with the
new districts. HE 11 at 3; Doc. 1 at 10; Doc. 1-1.
All 66 counties in South Dakota use TotalVote to administer elections. Doc. 1 at 10; Doc.
36 at 2; Doc. 37 at 4. And every county which redistricted after the 2020 census needed to update
its voter registration records in TotalVote to match its new electoral districts. Doc. 1 at 10.
TotalVote advertises that anyone with standard computer skills can use it. Doc. 1 at 11. Lincoln
and Minnehaha Counties in South Dakota, two of the most populous counties in the state, have
already updated their voter registration data and precincts based on new redistricting plans adopted
after the 2020 census, as have rural counties like Dewey and Jackson. Doc. 1 at 11. Plaintiffs are
unaware of any other county in the state, aside from Lyman County, that has not implemented its
redistricting plan before the November 8, 2022 general election. Doc. 11 at 14-15. However, at
the time the Ordinance was drafted, TotalVote apparently could not administer an election with
multi-member districts such as laid out by the Ordinance. Doc. 36 at 2; Doc. 36-2.
At the preliminary injunction hearing, this Court questioned Auditor Halverson to probe
what motivated the commissioners to adopt a two-district hybrid plan and delay its implementation
12
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 12 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

until 2024 and 2026. In fairness to her, Halverson did not vote on the plan though she attended all
meetings. Halverson testified that the commissioners sought the delay to give time to amend the
state statute and to pinpoint voter addresses and place them in the new districts. Halverson further
stated that creating two rather than five districts would increase the likelihood of having qualified
candidates run in each district and would reduce the number of splits she would have to make in
sorting voters into commissioner districts. A "split" occurs when voters in the same precincts need
different ballots for such elections as to school boards, municipal offices, water district positions,
and, with redistricting, Lyman County commissioner races. The only relevant "split" for the 2022
general election would be the new county commissioner districts if this Court were to grant pre-
election injunctive relief to Plaintiffs. To ensure a proper split, the auditor needs to know a voter's
actual physical residence, otherwise a voter cannot be assigned with confidence to a district that
cuts across precinct lines under the new multi-member two district plan. Doc. 36 at 3-4. Auditor
Halverson estimated that the voter verification process could take her office three to six months
before all voters were correctly assigned. Doc. 36 at 4. Just two people work in the Lyman County
Auditor's office, and they are responsible for administering elections in Lyman County as well as
keeping budgets for county departments, administering payroll, paying bills, and assisting with
and recording Commission meeting minutes, among other duties. Doc. 36 at 3.
To support this concern about sufficient time remaining to get proper splits, Defendants
introduced an exhibit of 370 names of voters whose addresses the Lyman County Auditor's office
had yet to verify. HE 17. By this Court's count, 51 of those voters are in or nearest to towns off
the Reservation, while the remaining 319 have Lower Brule addresses, indicating that they are
likely on the Reservation. See i± Indeed, some reservation addresses are house numbers, post
office boxes, old rural routes, street or highway names with nothing more, or, in one case, listed
13
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 13 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

as "Next to the Grade School." Id. Such addresses do not permit the County Auditor's office to
pinpoint the location of the voter based on the existing address. Id, But most of the Lower Bmle
voters on this list appear beside addresses that are conventional street or 911 addresses. Id.
Plaintiffs called as a rebuttal witness Brandon Campea, the lead architect of the Total Vote
and Total Address software. Campea testified that the Total Address software that is part of Total
Vote allows an auditor/user to pinpoint longitude and latitude from street or 911 addresses.
Campea testified that there are no blank spots in rural areas or reservations in South Dakota that
cannot be pinned using the software and that a user should be able to pin addresses within a matter
of seconds for those with a conventional street address or 911 address. This leaves some
addresses—77 of the 370 names of HE 17 by this Court's count—that are post office boxes, rural
routes, highway or street names without more, or mere house numbers where the Lyman County
Auditor's office will have to call, mail, or otherwise attempt to locate the voter to verify a physical
address to assure that the voter is in the right split. The Tribe volunteered to assist in that effort,
but the exhibit the Defendants introduced with tribal member addresses appeared to be outdated.
See HE K. In short, while there remains work for the Lyman County auditor's office to pinpoint
some voters' addresses, the Total Address software should facilitate in placing perhaps as many
as 293 of the 370 voters listed on Hearing Exhibit 17 into the proper split based on the existing
address information that the County Auditor's office has, leaving the difficult task of verifying
addresses by telephone or mail for just the remaining approximately 77 voters on the list.
To implement the preferred hybrid two-district plan, the County needed the South Dakota
legislature to amend SDCL § 7-8-10 to allow counties to create multi-member districts
contemplated by the Ordinance. Doc. 37 at 2; Doc. 37-1. Lyman County representatives initially
contacted state senator Troy Heinert to discuss proposing an amendment to SDCL § 7-8-10.
14
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 14 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

Senator Heinert is a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe who represents District 26, which
includes Lyman County. Senator Heinert had the Legislative Research Council draft such a bill
which included an emergency clause allowing the law to become effective immediately upon the
Governor's signature. HE 9. Senator Heinert ultimately did not sponsor any such legislation.
Instead, State House Representative Rebecca Reimer, who is a Lyman County resident and
represents the portion District 26A which includes Lyman County, was the driving legislative force
behind amending SDCL § 7-8-10 to allow the adoption of the County's hybrid two-district plan.
Doc. 11 at 4-5.
Representative Reimer testified at the preliminary injunction evidentiary hearing about the
legislative process to pass House Bill 1127. Each legislative session, the South Dakota legislature
creates several "vehicle bills"—which are devoid of content or whose content can be amended
later—to allow for proposing new legislation after the deadline for introducing new bills has
passed. These "vehicle bills" are then subject to a "hoghouse amendment" in which new content
is inserted, typically to deal with an emergency or other issues that arise late during the roughly
two-month South Dakota legislative session. House Bill 1127 was such a vehicle or hoghouse bill.
Doc. 1 at 11; Doc. 11 at 4-5. The deadline for introducing new legislation had passed by mid-
February 2022 when Representative Reimer shepherded a hoghouse amendment to a vehicle bill,
House Bill 1127, to amend SDCL § 7-8-10. The House State Affairs Committee recommended
"do pass" unanimously on the bill on February 16 and the South Dakota House of Representatives
passed the bill on February 17,2022. HE 10.
The Tribe did not know of these legislative developments until around February 28. Doc.
1 at 12. The Senate State Affairs Committee had voted 7 to 1 to pass House Bill 1127 on February
28, but Senator Heinert asked the committee to defer testimony on the amendment for two days,
15
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 15 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

until March 2,2022, to give the Tribe an opportunity to be heard on the bill. Doc. 1 at 12-13. The
committee agreed, and Vice Chairman Russell testified before the Senate State Affairs Committee
in opposition to the bill on March 2, 2022. Doc. 1 at 13; Doc. 7 at 4-5; Doc. 8-4. He stated that
the bill was introduced to delay implementing the County's new redistricting plan and that a multi-
member district plan had no discernable benefit over a single-member district plan. Doc. 7 at 4-
5; Doc. 8-4. Russell expressed concern that having two districts—one consisting of primarily
Native American voters and one consisting of primarily white voters—could escalate tension in
the community. Doc. 8-4. The attorney for the County, Sara Frankenstein, testified that amending
SDCL § 7-8-10 would allow the County to adopt a redistricting plan that complies with state and
federal law. Doc. 11 at 2; audio of hearing accessible at
https://sdpb.sd.gov/sdpbpodcast/2022/sst32.mp3.
After that hearing, the Senate State Affairs Committee again voted 7 to 1 to pass the bill
out of committee. HE 10. When House Bill 1127 reached the Senate floor, it contained an
emergency clause allowing the bill to become effective immediately upon the Governor's
signature, so long as a supermajority of the Senate passed the bill. After a mere majority of the
Senate initially voted to pass the bill on March 7, 2022, the bill with an emergency clause had
failed for lack of the required supermajority. Id. The Senate then reconsidered the bill with the
emergency clause stricken, and the bill passed the Senate on IVIarch 7. Id. The South Dakota
House of Representatives then passed the bill without the emergency clause included on March 8,
2022. Id, The bill was delivered to the Governor's office on March 10. House Bill 1127, S.D.
LEGISLATURE, https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/23256 (last visited August 9, 2022); Journal
of the Senate Ninety-Seventh Session - Thirty-Fourth Day, March 7, 2022, accessible at
https://mylrc.sdlegislature.gov/api/Documents/235844.pdf#page=476; Doc. 8-5; Doc. 35 at 17;
16
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 16 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

Doc. 36 at 4; Doc. 37 at 2, 4. According to the South Dakota Journal of the House dated March
28,2022, Governor Kristi Noem signed House Bill 1127 on March 16,2022. Journal of the House
Ninety-Seventh Session - Thirty-Eighth Day, March 28, 2022, accessible at
https://mylrc.sdlegislature.gov/api/Documents/236428.pdf#page=688; Doc. 1 at 13. The
amendment to SDCL § 7-8-10 became effective on July 1, 2022.7 Doc. 35 at 2; Doc. 36 at 4; Doc.
37 at 4.
Around the time House Bill 1127 was signed in March 2022, Auditor Halverson contacted
the South Dakota Secretary of State's Office to ask if it was feasible to implement the County's
new multi-member redistrict plan in 2022, rather than waiting until 2024 as the Ordinance
contemplated. HE 12; Doc. 36 at 4; Doc. 37 at 4. The response of the Secretary of State's Office
ultimately deferred that legal question to the County's attorney, though it also expressed concern
that election petitions for 2022 were already circulating. HE 12; Doc. 36 at 4; Doc. 37 at 4.
On May 18, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this complaint alleging (1) that an at-large election on
November 8, 2022 would dilute Native American voting strength in violation of the VRA; 2) that
the Commission's decision to delay implementing its new multi-member district plan until 2024
7 The amended version of the statute now provides:
The board of county commissioners, at its regular meeting in December of each
year ending in the numeral 1, or within three months of the federal decennial census
data becoming available, and after giving notice by publication for one week in the
official newspapers of the county, shall change the boundaries of the commissioner
districts if the change is necessary in order that each district is as regular and
compact in form as practicable. The board shall divide and redistrict its county that
each district complies with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, as determined by the last preceding federal decennial census; or the
board may, at that time, choose to have commissioners elected at large. The board
may choose to have its members elected from single-member districts, from multi-
member districts, or from a hybrid plan of single- and multi-member districts.
SDCL § 7-8-10 (2022).
17
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 17 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

and 2026 violated § 2 of the VRA; and 3) that Defendants made this delay with a discriminatory
purpose in violation of the VRA and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution. Doc. 1 at 17. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction the next
day seeking to require Defendants to administer the November 8, 2022 general election under the
new multi-member redistricting plan set forth in the Ordinance so that two of the three county
commissioner elections in 2022 would occur in the new District 1. Doc. 3,
Plaintiffs called two scholars as experts and introduced their reports as exhibits. The first
report—by Dr. Loren Collingwood, an associate professor of political science at the University of
New Mexico, and Dr. Hannah Walker, an assistant professor of Government at the University of
Texas at Austin—addressed whether there was racially polarized voting in Lyman County. HE C.
Racially polarized voting is one of the three factors a court considers in a VRA claim. See Bone
Shirt v. Hazeltine, 46 IF.3d 1011, 1018 (8th Cir. 2006) fdiscussmp the Gingles preconditions).
Racially polarized voting exists when a plurality of a minority racial group votes for one candidate,
and a plurality of the dominant or majority racial group votes for the opposing candidate. HE C
at 4; Doc. 5 at 8. If majorities of both racial groups support the same candidate, however, then
there is not racial polarization. HE C at 4; Doc. 5 at 8.
Professors Collingwood and Walker examined elections in Lyman County from 2014 to
2020 and identified racially polarized voting patterns in 82% of the elections analyzed. HE C at
5-6; Doc. 5 at 9-10. White voters elected white-preferred candidates in 25 of 31 elections during
this period, and white voters supported white-preferred candidates exclusively from 2016 to 2020.
HE C at 5-6; Doc. 5 at 5, 9-10; Doc. 11 at 10. In every election that had racially polarized voting,
white voters in the County voted as a bloc to defeat Native American-preferred candidates. HE C
at 5-6; Doc. 5 at 6, 9-10, 20; Doc. 11 at 10.
18
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 18 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

Plaintiffs' remaining expert was Dr. Daniel McCool, a professor emeritus of political
science at the University of Utah. HE G at 1; Doc. 6 at 1. In 1982, the VRA was amended, and a
Senate report accompanying the amendments identified nine factors relevant to whether a
jurisdiction had violated the VRA, Doc. 6 at 5-6. Professor McCool's report examined whether
these nine "Senate factors" were present in Lyman County. HE F; Doc. 6 at 5-6.
For the first factor—history of official voting-related discrimination in the state or political
subdivision—Professor McCool considered the long history of mistreatment of Native people in
South Dakota. HE F at 6-14; Doc. 6 at 8-16. Throughout the 1800s, white settlers and the Lakota
people fought over land and resources, and the conflict ultimately culminated in Red Cloud's war.
HE F at 7; Doc. 6 at 9. After this war, the federal government and the Lakota entered the Fort
Laramie Treaty of 1868, in which the Lakota territory was reduced but ostensibly secured from
further non-Indian incursions. HE F at 7; Doc. 6 at 9. After the Black Hills Gold Rush following
the Custer Expedition led to dishonoring of the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, Indian wars
continued. HE F at 9-10; Doc. 6 at 11-12. In 1890, the U.S. Army at Wounded Knee, South
Dakota, massacred between 175 and 340 Sioux people, including women, children, and unarmed
men. HE F at 10; Doc. 6 at 12. There of course is much more to the history of Native peoples that
have led to where we are now. The undersigned authored a timeline of that history, initially written
as a part of the undersigned's work on the Tribal Issues Advisory Group to the Sentencing
Commission and subsequently used by the Department of Justice as a training tool for attorneys
working in Indian country jurisdictions; the timeline can be found in United States v. Erickson,
436 F. Supp. 3d 1242, 1259-72 (D.S.D. 2020).
Professor McCool also discussed evidence of contemporary discrimination against Native
Americans, drawing from successful discrimination lawsuits filed by Native Americans plaintiffs.
19
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 19 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

HE F at 14-18; Doc. 6 at 16-20. Further, Professor McCool noted that Native Americans in South
Dakota did not have suffrage when the state first joined the union, and the voting rights of Native
Americans remained somewhat unclear during the early 1900s. HE F at 19-24; Doc. 6 at 21-26.
In the 1980s, an advisory committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights discussed
the difficulty Native Americans faced in participating in elections in South Dakota, and a 2000
report by the same advisory committee noted that "Native Americans do not fully particulate in
local, State, and Federal Elections." HE F at 25; Doc. 6 at 27.
Although not discussed in depth in Professor McCool's report, the Chamberlain School
District, part of which includes eastern Lyman County, reached an agreement with the Department
of Justice ("DOJ") to settle another VRA lawsuit in 2020. Doc. 1 at 15; Justice Department
Reaches Agreement with Chamberlain School District, South Dakota, under Voting Rights Act,
U.S. DEP'T. OF JUST. (May 28, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-
agreement-chamberlain-school-district-south-dakota-under-voting. The DOJ lawsuit alleged that
at-large elections of school board members within the district diluted the voting power of Native
Americans in violation of the VRA. Id. On May 27, 2020, the Chamberlain School District
entered a consent decree with the DO J under which it agreed to change its elections. Doc. 1 at 15;
Justice Department Reaches Agreement with Chamberlain School District, South Dakota, under
Voting Rights Act, U.S. DEP'T. OF JUST. (May 28, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-
department-reaches-agreement-chamberlain-school-district-south-dakota-under-voting.
The Defendants themselves of course are not to blame for and did not contribute to the
historical deprivation of Native American property and at times near-genocidal conduct and
attitudes toward Native Americans, their families, and culture. Indeed, setting aside for now
Defendants' plan to delay redistricting and preference for a two-district plan to be implemented in
20
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 20 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

2024 and 2026, Defendants appeared to welcome Tribal members to Commission meetings, deal
with Tribal concerns respectfully, and adopt a plan (albeit delayed in implementation) to address
the history of the at-large electoral system for commissioners blocking Native American- preferred
candidates from being elected to the Commission. On at least two recent occasions, the County
has publicly congratulated a Lower Brule High School sports team on its success by Facebook
post and newspaper print. HE 16. Nothing in this Opinion and Order should be taken as suggesting
in any way that any of the Defendants are racists.
For the second factor, the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political
subdivision is racially polarized, Professor McCool analyzed 2018 and 2020 elections in Lyman
County, which he concluded showed "an extreme degree" of racial polarization. HE F at 30-33;
Doc. 6 at 32-35. For instance, in 2018, Steven Barnett, a white candidate for South Dakota
Secretary of State, won 75.3% of the vote in majority-white precincts and just 10% of the vote in
the Lower Brule precinct. The opposing candidate Alexandra Frederick, a Native American,
received 89% of the vote in the Lower Brule precinct.8 HE F at 31; Doc. 6 at 33. Professor
McCool's testimony on racially polarized voting patterns was consistent with Professor
Collingwood and Walker's report analyzing racially polarized voting patterns in Lyman County.9
For the third factor—the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used
unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other
The Report inaccurately states that Barnett and Frederick ran for South Dakota Attorney General
in 2018.
9 The Defendants assert that there is not so much racially polarized voting, but politically polarized
voting with Native Americans preferring Democrats or, in at least one instance, an independent
candidate, while non-Indians prefer the Republican candidates. If this explanation were accepted,
then the second Senate factor could never be met. The United States of the early 21st Century
effectively has a two-party political system. When a distinct racial minority group consistently
prefers candidates of one party, the other party cannot assert that the VRA does not apply simply
because the racial group's voting patterns are affiliated with a particular political party.
21
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 21 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the
minority group—Professor McCool identified the County's "at-large" election plan and staggered
elections as unfavorable to minority voters. HE F at 33; Doc. 6 at 35. Indeed, it appears that no
Native American has ever been elected to a county position in Lyman County. Professor McCool
determined the fourth factor, the exclusion of members of the minority group from candidate
slating processes, was not relevant to this case. HE F at 34; Doc. 6 at 36.
Professor McCool found that the fifth factor—the extent to which minority group members
bear the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder
their ability to participate effectively in the political process—was especially pronounced in this
case. HE F at 34-43; Doc. 6 at 36^5. First, he found that historic discrimination against Native
Americans has contributed to the high poverty rate on the Lower B rule Reservation for a long
time. HE F at 34-38; Doc.6 at 36-40. Around 1889, after huge land cessions were made to white
settlers and the government dramatically cut rations, the Sioux people were impoverished and on
the verge of starvation. HE F at 35; Doc. 6 at 37. According to census data, four of the ten poorest
counties in the United States were on Indian reservations in South Dakota in 1990, and the poverty
rate on reservations in South Dakota has not significantly improved in subsequent decades. HE F
at 36-37; Doc. 6 at 38-39. In 2020, the poverty rate was 40% on the Lower Brule Reservation
compared to 11.6% statewide, and the unemployment rate was 17.5% on the Lower Brule
Reservation compared to 2.5% statewide. Doc. 11 at 13-14. The high poverty rate of Indian
people has impaired their ability to vote and participate in the civic process. Doc. 6 at 39-40.
Next, Professor McCool discussed the government's "poor job of educating" Native
students, beginning with Indian boarding schools. HE F at 38; Doc. 6 at 40. He cited a statistic
that 17% of Native American students enroll in college after high school, while the national
22
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 22 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

average is about 70%. HE F at 39; Doc. 6 at 41. In 2020, 10.1% of Native Americans on the
Lower Brule Reservation have a bachelor's degree compared to 29.3% of the population statewide.
Doc. 11 at 14. In discussing the effect of discrimination on health. Professor McCool observed
that European diseases caused many Native American deaths as did Indian wars in the 1 800s. HE
F at 39; Doc. 6 at 41. Today, Native Americans have a lower life expectancy and higher mortality
rate than the national average. HE F at 40; Doc. 6 at 42. Professor McCool concluded that the
poor health metrics and lack of access to adequate health care among Native Americans in South
Dakota hinders Native people's ability to participate in the electoral process and prioritize civil
responsibilities. HE F at 40; Doc. 6 at 42. Additionally, Professor McCool noted that many Native
communities lack access to broadband internet, which is vital to accessing voting information
including voter registration information and information on electoral candidates. HE F at 41; Doc.
6 at 43. A 2018 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35% of households on
Indian reservations lacked broadband service, compared to 8% nationally. HE F at 41; Doc. 6 at
43.
For the sixth factor, the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns,
Professor McCool stated overt racial appeals were rare. HE F at 44; Doc. 6 at 46. And "[b]ecause
of the limited time available for this preliminary report, I did not travel to Lyman County and
interview individuals, which is an effective way of discovering if racial appeals have been made
in campaigns." HE F at 44; Doc. 6 at 46.
For the seventh factor, the extent to which members of the minority group have been
elected to public office in the jurisdiction. Professor McCool stated that no Native American had
ever been elected to a state-wide position—such as public utilities commissioner, lieutenant
governor, state auditor, and commissioner of school and public lands—in South Dakota state
23
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 23 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

government. HE F at 44; Doc. 6 at 46. From 1889 to 2015, only 13 Native Americans have been
elected to the South Dakota legislature, and Professor McCool found no record of a Native
American elected to a city council or the state legislature before the 1980s.10 HE F at 45; Doc. 6
at 47. Native Americans are about 9% of the population in South Dakota, but only comprise 4.8%
of the state legislature. HE F at 45; Doc. 6 at 47. And none of the nine current officer-holders in
Lyman County are Native American, although Native Americans are approximately 40% of the
County's population. HE F at 46; Doc. 6 at 48.
For the eighth factor, the responsiveness of state and local officials to the needs of
minorities, Professor McCool cited a four-state survey of Native Americans showing that only
16.3% of Native Americans in South Dakota trusted the state government, the lowest of all four
states surveyed. HE F at 47; Doc. 6 at 49. And only 5.02% of Native Americans in South Dakota
stated they trusted their local government. HE F at 47; Doc. 6 at 49. Professor McCool also noted
that the South Dakota legislature has a State-Tribal Relations Committee. HE F at 48; Doc. 6 at
50. However, in August 2020, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and her staff refused to meet
with the committee, claiming "unfair treatment." HE F at 48; Doc. 6 at 50. Hostility between the
committee and the governor's office resulted in the replacement of a Native American committee
co-chair with a white legislator. HE F at 48-59; Doc. 6 at 50-51. The former Native American
committee co-chair alleged that racism motivated his removal, which the South Dakota house
leadership denied, HE F at 48; Doc. 6 at 50.
10 When South Dakota had two House of Representative seats, the voters of the then-First District
of South Dakota elected a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Ben Reifel, to Congress and
reelected him four times. He served from January of 1961 to January of 1971 in the House of
Representatives. No Native American has been elected to state-wide office since that time.
24
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 24 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

For the last and final factor, the tenuousness of the policy underlying voting laws,
standards, and practices, Professor McCool discussed the County's decision to reject the Tribe's
proposed redistricting plan in the fall of 2021 to adopt its own redistricting plan instead. HE F at
52-53; Doc. 6 at 54-55. He also stated the "hoghouse" amendment process used to pass changes
to SDCL § 7-8-10 appeared "tenuous" and ultimately concluded the County's entire process in
adopting its new redistricting plan and amending SDCL § 7-8-10 lacked an "obvious justification
for its unusual and apparently unprecedented features." HE F at 53; Doc. 6 at 55.
Defendants presented evidence on their argument that it is too close to the election for this
Court to grant injunctive relief. Under South Dakota law, the 2022 relevant election-related
deadlines are:
March 29: Deadline to file petitions in advance of primary elections, SDCL § 12-6-4;
April 20: Deadline for primary election ballots to be printed, SDCL § 12-16-1;
April 22: Absentee voting in primary elections begins, SDCL § 12-19-1.2;
June 7: Primary election day;
August 2: Last day for candidates to withdraw from general election, SDCL § 12-6-55;
August 9: Last day for party to fill vacancies for withdrawn candidates, SDCL § 12-8-6;
September 21: Deadline for general election ballot printing,11 SDCL § 12-16-1 and -17;
September 23: Absentee voting begins, SDCL § 12-19-3, as well as the Uniformed and
Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act;
October 24: Voter registration deadline for general election, SDCL § 12-4-5;
November 8: General election day.
n A printer typically takes two weeks to print ballots, so at least two weeks before September 21
the names of the ballot need to be set.
25
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 25 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

HE 1. There are other deadlines for elections beyond the deadlines set forth above and other
responsibilities borne by county auditors surrounding elections. HE 1. Lyman County budgets
$25,000 per year for elections and a mere 5% contingency. HE 14. Auditor Halverson estimated
that the cost of any special election would be above and possibly well above $11,600. HE 14.
Defendants Zane Reis, Ryan Huffman, and Jared Schelske are the three commissioners
seeking reelection in 2022, and each has qualified to be on the ballot in 2022. None of them reside
on the Reservation, and each of them live in what the Commission drew as District 2 under the
two-district plan. If the Ordinance's alternative five-district plan had been implemented, each
would have been in different districts as well: Reis in 3-3, Schelske in 3-4, and Huffman in 3-5.
See HE 5 at 27. Reis and Huffman are Republicans and a third Republican, Beau Johnson who is
non-Indian and lives off-reservation, is qualified to be on the ballot as well. Schelske is running
as an independent, though Auditor Halverson identified him as a Republican. Plaintiffs Stephanie
Bolman and Ben Janis are Tribal members, live in what the Commission drew as District 1, and
have qualified to run for county commission spots in 2022 as Democrats. The remaining two
commissioners/defendants are Brian Kraus, a non-Indian who lives on the Reservation within the
part of Precinct 4 that would under the Commission's plan be part of District 1, and Leslie Reuer,
who is a non-Indian in what the Commission contemplated to be District 2, or if the statute had
not been amended, District 3-3.
II. Standards Governing Consideration of this Preliminary Injunction Motion
"A district court considering injunctive relief evaluates [a] the movant's likelihood of
success on the merits, [b] the threat of irreparable harm to the movant, [c] the balance of the
equities between the parties, and [d] whether an injunction is in the public interest." Powell v.
Ryan, 855 F.3d 899, 902 C8th Cir. 2017) (citing Dataphase Svs.. Inc. v. C L Svs., Inc., 640 F.2d
26
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 26 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc)). "No single factor is dispositive, as the district court must
balance all factors to determine whether the injunction should issue. However, in deciding whether
to grant a preliminary injunction, likelihood of success on the merits is most significant." Turtle
Island Foods, SPC v. Thompson, 992 F.3d 694, 699 (8th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up and citations
omitted).
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act states that a violation occurs if,
based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes
leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally
open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by [the Act] in
that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to
participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The
extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State
or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided,
That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class
elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.
52 U.S.C. § 10301(b). "The essence of a § 2 claim is that a certain electoral law, practice, or
structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities
enjoyed by minority and white voters to elect their preferred candidates." Bone Shirt, 461 F.3d at
1017-18 (cleaned up and citation omitted).
To establish a Section 2 violation, the plaintiffs must prove by a preponderance of
the evidence three elements, often referred to as the "Gingles preconditions": (1)
The racial group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a
majority in a single-member district; (2) the racial group is politically cohesive; and
(3) the majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the
minority's preferred candidate. Failure to prove each of the preconditions defeats
a Section 2 claim. If the three preconditions are met, the court proceeds to consider
the totality of the circumstances.
Id (cleaned up and citations omitted); see also Cottier v. City of Martin, 604 F.3d 553, 559 (8th
Cir. 2010).
In considering the totality of the circumstances, "courts should consider the ...
inexhaustive, objective factors" in the "Senate Committee report that accompanied the 1982
27
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 27 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

amendment to the Voting Rights Act[.]" Bone Shirt, 461 F.3d at 1021; see also Thomburg v.
Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 36-37 (1986). These factors include:
(1) the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political
subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register,
to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process;
(2) the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is
racially polarized;
(3) the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large
election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or
other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for
discrimination against the minority group;
(4) if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority
group have been denied access to that process;
(5) the extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political
subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education,
employment and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the
political process;
(6) whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial
appeals;
(7) the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public
office in the jurisdiction.
Bone Shirt, 461 F.3d at 1021-22; see^lso Gmgles, 478 U.S. at 36-37.
III. Application of the Dataphase Factors
A. Plaintiffs' Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of satisfying the Gingles factors. The first factor-
that the Tribal members on the Reservation are sufficiently large and geographically compact to
constitute a majority in a single district—is indisputable. Indeed in 2006, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recognized that the Native American population of South Dakota
is "geographically compact" "[b]ecause of the well-documented history of discrimination against
Native-Americans and the nature of the reservation system[.]" Bone Shirt, 461 F.3d at 1016. And
the redistricting plan set forth in the Ordinance drew District 1 around a population that was
92.53% Native American, easily demonstrating that Native Americans in the County are
28
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 28 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

geographically compact enough "to constitute a majority in a single-member district." Bone Shirt,
461F.3datl018.
The second Gingles factor—that Tribal members on the Reservation are "politically
cohesive"—is borne out by the data in Plaintiffs' expert report. For instance, in the 2020 elections
for President, U.S. Senate, State Senate, State House of Representatives, and Public Utilities
Commissioner, over 80% of Native voters in Lyman County voted forNative-preferred candidates.
HE C at 15-16. The lone exception was in a U.S. House of Representatives race where the Native
American-preferred candidate received about 60% of the Native American vote. Id. Lyman
County election results in the 2018, 2016, and 2014 races are not far different in showing strong
political cohesion in the Lyman County Native American vote. HE C at 12-14.
The third Gingles factor—that white residents of Lyman County vote "sufficiently as a
bloc to enable [them] usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate" for the Commission—
—likewise is borne out by historical data. Bone Shirt, 461 F.3d at 1018. Professor Collingwood
testified consistently with his expert report during the motion hearing that voting in Lyman County
was highly polarized, with a voting polarization rate of 82% from 2014 to 2020. Doc. 5 at 5, 9-
10. The data underscores how racially polarized voting in Lyman County is. Taking 2020 as an
example here, Lyman County data shows that "[s]upport from white voters for the Native
American preferred candidate never rises above 20 percent." HE C at 11. The data shows a similar
pattern in previous years where every election in Lyman County from 2016 to date shows the
majority white voters preferring a different candidate than the minority Native American voters.
12 The 2020 House of Representatives race in South Dakota was a contest between a Republican
and a Libertarian candidate with no Democrat running. HE C at 15.
29
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 29 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

HE C at 9-10. Plaintiffs have made a strong preliminary showing that the Gingles factors are
satisfied.
This Court next considers the totality of the circumstances, including the "Senate factors,"
to determine whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim. Plaintiffs assert
many of the Senate factors support their claim, including:
(1) the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political
subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register,
to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process; (2) the extent to
which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially
polarized; (3) the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used
unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements; ... (5) the extent to
which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the
effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which
hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process; . . . [and] (7)
the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public
office in the jurisdiction^]
Doc. 1 at 13-14; Bone Shirt, 461 F.3d at 1021-22. Plaintiffs also claim that the Commission was
not responsive to the Tribe during the redistricting process. Doc. 1 at 8, 17; Doc. 11 at 12-14.
Rather than adopt the Tribe's preferred plan, the County went to the state legislature to amend
South Dakota law to allow implementation of a novel hybrid redistricting plan, causing a delay for
when tribal members would likely be able to elect their preferred commissioners. Doc. 1 at 8, 17;
Doc. 11 at 12-14.
Here, as a preliminary matter, the totality of the circumstances supports Plaintiffs' VRA
claim. On the first Senate factor, Plaintiffs have produced evidence of historical discrimination
against Native Americans in South Dakota, and evidence of such discrimination against Native
people is well-documented in the historical and judicial record. See Bone Shirt, 461 F.3d at 1016
(recognizing that much of the Native American population in South Dakota is geographically
compact because of the "well-documented history of discrimination against Native-
30
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 30 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

Americans and the nature of the reservation system"); Bone Shirt v. Hazeltme, 336 F. Supp. 2d
976, 1022-34 (D.S.D. 2004) (discussing the history of racial discrimination against Native
Americans in South Dakota in great detail). Professor McCool's report provided evidence of
historical discrimination against Native Americans politically and socially. Doc. 6 at 8-31.
However, there is no evidence of any recent discrimination by the County against the rights of
Tribal members to register or vote, notwithstanding that at-large commission elections have
effectively squelched the chances of electing a Native-American-preferred candidate to the
Commission with the exception of defendant/independent candidate Schelske, who received
majority support from Native Americans and won a seat on the Commission.
The second Senate factor strongly favors the Plaintiffs. Professors Collingwood and
Walker's report showed 82% voter polarization in Lyman County, leading them to conclude that
Native American votes were diluted in at-large elections. Doc. 5 at 6, 20; Doc. 11 at 10.
"Ordinarily, racially polarized voting is the keystone of a vote dilution case. Endogenous and
interracial elections are the best indicators of whether the white majority usually defeats the
minority candidate." Bone Shirt, 461 F.3d at 1020-21 (cleaned up and citations omitted). The
strong evidence of racially polarized voting in Lyman County is addressed above in this Court's
review of Plaintiffs' export reports and Professors Collingwood and McCool's testimony.
Likewise, the third Senate factor somewhat favors the Plaintiffs. Since 1992, Lyman
County has elected commissioners at-large from a single district. While there is no evidence that
the County adopted an at-large election scheme with a discriminatory purpose, whether intended
or not, the effect of a single county-wide district has been to create a system where the County's
13 "Endogenous races are elections in a single district which are held to elect that district's
legislative seats." Bone Shirt, 461 F.3d at 1020 n.8.
31
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 31 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

white majority can and largely has blocked election of Native-preferred candidates. The fourth
Senate factor favors the Defendants. Native American candidates could get slated for an election,
and two of them are in fact slated on the 2022 general election ballot as commissioner candidates
if this Court were to allow an at-large general election to proceed.
The fifth Senate factor favors the Plaintiffs. Historic discrimination has affected education,
employment, and health of Native Americans in South Dakota generally and Lower Brule Sioux
Tribe members on the Reservation in particular. Poverty, perhaps combined with Tribal members'
belief that Native votes do not matter in local elections and their voices go unheard, as described
by Chairman Estes in his testimony, appears to hinder Native Americans in Lyman County from
participating in elections at the same level as non-Indians in the County. The effects of historic
discrimination against Native Americans in South Dakota on education, healthcare, income, and
trust in local and state government were discussed in depth in Professor McCool's report, and
Professor McCool testified very consistently with his written analysis. While not to be blamed on
the Defendants here and not noted by Professor McCool, subtle racial messaging has crept into
South Dakota politics, making the sixth Senate factor at least debatable, though not determinative
here.
The seventh Senate factor favors granting relief, in that no member of the Tribe has ever
won election to a Lyman County office. While Defendants have generally contested that the
Gingles preconditions are satisfied and that the Senate factors support granting relief during
litigation, the evidence in the record supports a preliminary finding that the voting power of Native
Americans in Lyman County will be diluted in an at-large election in violation of Section 2 of the
VRA.
B. The Threat of Irreparable Harm to the Plaintiffs
32
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 32 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

"Irreparable harm occurs when a party has no adequate remedy at law, typically because
its injuries cannot be fully compensated through an award of damages." Gen. Motors Corp. v.
Harry Brown's. LLC, 563 F.3d 312.319 f8th Cir. 2009'); see also Cunningham v. Adams, 808 F.2d
815, 821 (11th Cir. 1987) (stating an injury is irreparable "if it cannot be undone through monetary
remedies"). "[A] party must show that the harm is certain and great and of such imminence that
there is a clear and present need for equitable relief." Iowa Utils. Bd. v. Fed. Commc'ns
Comm'n, 109 F.3d 418, 425 (8th Cir. 1996).
"It is undeniable that the right to vote is a fundamental right guaranteed by the
Constitution." Shiplev v. Chi. Bd. of Election Comm'rs, 947 F.3d 1056, 1061 (7th Cir. 2020)
(citing Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428,433 (1992)). The right to vote is "a fundamental political
right" because it is necessary to preserve "other basic civil and political rights." Reynolds v.
Sims. 377 U.S. 533, 562 (1964). "[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement
or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free
exercise of the franchise." Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 105 (2000) (per curiam) (quoting
Sims, 377 U.S. at 555). Courts have routinely found that the abridgement or dilution of the right
to vote establishes irreparable injury. See, e.g.. League of Women Voters ofN.C. v. N.C., 769
F. 3 d 224, 247 (4th Cir. 2014) ("Courts routinely deem restrictions on fundamental voting rights
irreparable injury.. . . [0]nce the election occurs, there can be no do-over and no redress."); Mich.
State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson, 833 F.3d 656, 669 (6th Cir. 2016) ("[W]hen
constitutional rights are threatened or impaired, irreparable injury is presumed. A restriction on
the fundamental right to vote therefore constitutes irreparable injury."); Sanchez v. Cegavske,214
F. Supp. 3d 961, 976 (D. Nev. 2016) ("It is clear that abridgement of
the right to vote constitutes an irreparable injury."); Flares v. Town oflslip, 382 F. Supp. 3d 197,
33
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 33 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

228 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) ("[A]n abridgement or dilution of the right
to vote constitutes irreparable harm."); Cardona v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 785 F. Supp. 837,
840 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (same); Obama for Am. v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423,436 (6th Cir. 2012) (same).
Plaintiffs have established the threat of irreparable harm.
C. The Balance of Equity Between the Parties and Whether an Injunction is in the
Public Interest
" '[W]hen the [g]overnment is the opposing party,' [as in this case,] the balance of
the equities and the public interest factors merge." Arc of Iowa v. Reynolds, 566 F. Supp. 3d 921,
931 (S.D. Iowa 2021) (first and second alterations in original) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S.
418,435(2009)).
There are conflicting genuine and legitimate interests in this case. A governmental entity
and in turn its officials like the Defendants here have a strong public interest in orderly
administration of elections consistent with state law requirements, while Plaintiffs have a strong
public interest in having their electoral voice heard consistent with the VRA. "While states have
a strong interest in their ability to enforce state election law requirements, the public has a strong
interest in exercising the fundamental political right to vote." Ohio State Conf. ofN.A.A.C.P. v.
Husted, 768 F.3d 524, 560 (6th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up and citations omitted); see also Purcell v.
Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1,4 (2006) ("A State indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the
integrity of its election process. . , . Countering the State's compelling interest in [preserving the
integrity of its election process] is the plaintiffs' strong interest in exercising the fundamental
political right to vote." (cleaned up and citations omitted)). When weighing these competing
concerns, the Eighth Circuit has suggested that the Court look back to likelihood of success on the
merits: "[T]he determination of where the public interest lies also is dependent on the
determination of the likelihood of success on the merits of the [VRA] challenge because it is
34
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 34 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

always in the public interest to protect constitutional rights." Phelps-Roper v. Nixon, 545 F.3d
685, 690 (8th Cir. 2008).
As a general matter, because Plaintiffs have showed a likelihood of success on the merits
of their claim, the balance of equities and public interest favor protecting the right of Plaintiffs and
Native Americans within Lyman County generally to participate meaningfully in county
commissioner elections over saving Lyman County the burden and cost of changing their election
procedures so long as a fair and orderly election of commissioners occurs. See Ohio State Conf.
ofN.A.A.C.P., 768 F.3d at 560 (Public "interest is best served by favoring enfranchisement and
ensuring that qualified voters' exercise of their right to vote is successful."); Org. for Black
Struggle v. Ashcroft, 493 F. Supp. 3d 790, 802 (W.D. Mo. 2020) ("No right is more precious in a
free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which,
as good citizens, we must live." (quoting Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1,17 C1964))'); League of
Women Voters of Mo. v. Ashcroft, 336 F. Supp. 3d 998, 1006 (W.D. Mo. 2018) (granting
injunctive relief when the burden on defendants to "(a) alter the policies for counting certain
provisional ballots, (b) create and disseminate posters . , . discussing the provisional ballot
counting process, (c) send a mailing to affected . . . customers, and (d) make updates to the online
and mail change-of-address forms" did not outweighed the harm of disenfranchisement); Sims,
377 U.S. at 585 (stating that "once a State's legislative apportionment scheme has been found to
be unconstitutional, it would be the unusual case in which a court would be justified in not taking
appropriate action to insure that no further elections are conducted under the invalid plan"),
In short, the public interest is served by a form of relief that gives effect to the VRA without
unduly disrupting the election process. Indeed, because the public has an interest in fair and
orderly elections, the Supreme Court of the United States has "repeatedly emphasized that lower
35
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 35 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election." Org. for
Black Struggle v. Ashcroft. 978 F.3d 603, 609 C8th Cir. 2020) ('citing Republican Nat'l Comm. v.
Democratic Nat'l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1207 (2020)). The election is soon, but the eve of the
election has not yet arrived. The public interest and the balance of the equity between the parties
thus turns on whether injunctive relief can be fashioned in a way to effectuate the VRA while
preserving a fair and orderly election.
D. Whether the Defenses Raised Bar Plaintiffs from Relief.
Defendants claim and argue that this Court should not consider the merits of Plaintiffs'
claim because 1) Plaintiffs lack standing, 2) Plaintiffs' claim is moot, and 3) laches bars relief.
Doc. 35 at 6-19; Doc. 37 at 11-21, 27. This Court rejected these arguments at the preliminary
injunction hearing but will explain why and address Defendants' defenses now.
"The irreducible constitutional minimum of standing consists of three elements. The
plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged
conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision."
City ofKennett v. Env't Prot. Agency, 887 F.3d 424, 430 (8th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up and citation
omitted); see also Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). "Standing is to be
determined as of the commencement of the suit." City ofKennett, 887 F.3d at 430 (cleaned up
and citation omitted).
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing because their injmy is not redressable. Doc.
35 at 7-13; Doc. 37 at 16-18, 27; Doc. 44 at 17. Defendants note that some of South Dakota's
statutory deadlines for the November 8, 2022 election have passed, such as the deadlines for
36
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 36 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

candidate petitions and the primary election. Therefore, Defendants argue, by implementing a
new redistricting plan now, Defendants would violate some of these statutory deadlines for
election procedures. Doc. 35 at 5-13; Doc. 37 at 1-2, 8-18, 29. Defendants argue that this Court
cannot order the County to implement a new redistricting plan when such an order would require
Defendants to violate state law and thus the claimed VRA violations are not redressable. Doc. 35
at 5-13; Doc. 37 at 1-2,8-18, 29.
Plaintiffs' claims are redressable because Congress has preempted state law in this area.
"The Supremacy Clause provides Congress the authority expressly to preempt state law by
defining the scope of preemption, or impliedly where congressional intent to supersede state law
may be inferred." Pet Quarters, Inc. v. Depository Tr, & Clearing Corp., 559 F.3d 772, 780 (8th
Cir. 2009) (citing U.S. CONST. art. VI, d. 2). Here, the VRA expressly preempts state law when
the application of state law would violate the Act. "No voting qualification or prerequisite to
voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political
subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the
United States to vote on account of race or color . ..." 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a) (emphasis added).
Further, "[i]n the absence of an express congressional command, state law is pre-empted if that
law actually conflicts with federal law." Cipollone v. Ligeett Grp.. Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516 (1992).
"Conflict preemption occurs if it is impossible to comply with both state and federal laws or
if a state law 'stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and
objectives of Congress.'" Styczinski v. Arnold, 550 F. Supp. 3d 637, 656 (D. Minn. 2021) (quoting
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 399 (2012)). This Court is very sensitive to disrupting an
There was no primary election for Lyman County commissioner races because the county
contemplated three county-wide at large elections and there are three Republicans, two Democrats
and one independent who submitted petitions for those commissioner spots.
37
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 37 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

election unnecessarily or in a manner that causes confusion and mistrust in the outcome, but to the
extent that South Dakota law conflicts with implementing a new redistricting plan that complies
with the VRA, these statutes are preempted.
Next, Defendants argue Plaintiffs' claims are moot because the County agreed to
implement its multi-member district plan after the November 8, 2022 election and because time is
too short to redress any claimed wrong before that election. Doc. 35 at 13-14; Doc. 37 at 15.
Simply stated, a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the
parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. The heavy burden of
proving mootness falls on the party asserting the case has become moot. A case
becomes moot if it can be said with assurance that there is no reasonable
expectation that the violation will recur or if interim relief or events have
completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.
Kennedy Bids. Assocs. v. Viacom. Inc., 375 F.3d 731, 745 (8th Cir. 2004) (cleaned up and
citations omitted).
Defendants' argument in short is that it is too close to the election to redress any VRA
violation and that once the election occurs, this case then is moot. Doc. 35. Yet at the preliminary
injunction hearing, this Court explained why, even if this Court were to allow the 2022 election to
occur despite an apparent violation of Section 2 of the VRA and especially if both Native American
candidates for county commissioner were to lose as history suggests probable, this Court would
be inclined to renumber the Native American district in Lyman County "District 2" so that under
SDCL § 7-8-1 in 2024 Lyman County's Native American voters could elect its two preferred
candidates to the Commission. That is, even if Defendants were to convince this Court that it is
too close to the election to impose a remedy now, and this Court is far from convinced at this point,
the case still would not be moot. Given the conclusion reached in this opinion and order, this case
is far from moot.
38
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 38 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

Defendants also raise a laches defense in arguing that the balance of equities and public
interest favor denying Plaintiffs'relief. Id at 16-19. Laches is an equitable doctrine. Brown-
Mitchell v. Kan. City Power & Light Co., 267 F.3d 825, 827 (8th Cir. 2001).
Laches applies when a claimant inexcusably delays in asserting its claim and
thereby unduly prejudices the party against whom the claim ultimately is asserted.
A defendant must demonstrate the presence of three elements in order to
successfully assert laches as a defense: (1) a delay in asserting a right or claim; (2)
that the delay was not excusable; and (3) that there was undue prejudice to the party
against whom the claim is asserted.
Roederer v. J. Garcia Carrion, S.A., 569 F.3d 855, 858-59 (8th Cir, 2009) (cleaned up and citations
omitted). "Laches is not a doctrine concerned solely with timing. A defendant must also establish
undue prejudice as an independent element of its defense. Measuring prejudice entails balancing
equities." Thomas v. Bryant, 938 F.3d 134, 150-51 (5th Cir. 2019) (footnote and internal
quotations omitted). "As with all affirmative defenses, the party asserting a laches defense bears
the burden of proving it." Thomas v. Brvant. 919 F.3d 298, 312 ('5th Cir. 2019); see also A.I.G.
Agency, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 33 F.4th 1031, 1034 (8th Cir. 2022). Defendants' laches
defense is intermingled with the equitable interests in this case. Doc. 35 at 16-19; Doc. 37 at 19-
21, 24-26. This Court thus considers together the issues oflaches and equity. Dickinson v. Ind.
State Election Bd., 933 F.2d 497, 502 (7th Cir. 1991).
Defendants' laches claim asserts that Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed by waiting until May
18 to start this case and until May 19 to file a motion for injunctive relief. Doc. 35 at 16-19; Doc.
37 at 19-21; Doc. 47 at 8. Defendants claim that Plaintiffs knew the County intended to implement
an at-large election by early February 2022 when the County gave the Tribe the Ordinance stating
that neither of the County's proposed redistricting plans would take effect until 2024. Doc. 1 at
10; Doc. 35 at 17; Doc. 37 at 19-20. Vice Chairman Russell acknowledged the Ordinance's plan
in an email dated February 4, 2022, stating that one of the Tribe's attorneys "wanted us to put
39
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 39 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

pressure on Lyman County to hurry up the process to be seated this year [rather than waiting until
2024]. But we think we will be OK. Let's leave well alone and let the situation progress." Doc.
36 at 2; Doc. 36-1; Doc. 37 at 19. This Opinion and Order already has addressed some of the
Defendants' other arguments tied to their laches defense—public interest and balance of harm, the
amount of time needed to verify voter addressed for splits, and the proximity to the election. See
Doc. 37 at 24-26.
Plaintiffs respond that laches should not apply because the Tribe has worked diligently
with the Commission since October 2021 to implement a new redistricting plan. Doc. 42 at 4, 9-
10; Doc. 43 at 14. Plaintiffs also assert that Defendants are responsible for delaying the
implementation of a new districting plan until after February 2022 because the County advanced
a plan that required amending state law. Doc. 42 at 4, 9-10; Doc. 43 at 14-16. Therefore, any
delay after February 2022, when the County successfully petitioned the legislature to amend SDCL
§ 7-8-10, was attributable to Defendants and would not cause them undue prejudice. Doc. 42 at
3-5, 9-10; Doc. 43 at 14-16. Finally, Plaintiffs claim that the harm ofaVRA violation outweighs
the burden on the County to implement a new redistricting plan. Doc. 11 at 16-20; Doc. 42 at 13.
Initially, Defendants are responsible for not adopting a redistricting plan for the November
of 2022 commissioner races. SDCL § 7-8-10, as discussed above, by its plain language directed
counties to redistrict and permitted county commissions to change from single district to multiple
districts by stating that "at its regular meeting in February of each year ending in the numeral 2 ..
. [a county commission] shall change the boundaries of the commissioner districts if such change
is necessary" based on federal decennial census data "and it shall so divide and redistrict its county
that each district may contain as near as possible an equal number of residents." SDCL § 7-8-10
(2021). The Commission did so but delayed implementation of any plan to the 2024 and 2026
40
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 40 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

elections, with its preferred plan contingent on the South Dakota legislature amending SDCL § 7-
8-10. Doc. 8-6; Doc. 11 at 20; Doc. 36 at 2; Doc. 37 at 3. The Commission gave Russell the
Ordinance setting forth its plan to adopt a multi-member redistricting plan in February 2022 and
he responded favorably; within a week though, Russell provided notice that the Tribe had passed
a Resolution opposing the plan and calling for the adoption of the five single-member district plan.
HE 6; HE 7; Doc. 1 at 11; Doc. 7 at 4; Doc. 8-3; Doc. 36 at 2; Doc. 36-1; Doc. 37 at 19. Because
the proposed amendment to SDCL § 7-8-10 had to be passed by the South Dakota legislature
before the County could adopt its multi-member two-district redistricting plan, it was unclear
whether the Commission's preferred two-district plan or the alternative five-district redistricting
plan as set forth in the Ordinance would be adopted until on or about March 28, 2022, when the
senate report stating that House Bill 1127 had been signed was published. Journal of the House
Ninety-Seventh Session - Thirty-Eighth Day, March 28, 2022, accessible at
https://mylrc.sdlegislature.gov/api/Documents/236428.pdf#page=688. Plaintiffs filed their
complaint and motion for preliminary injunction about seven weeks later on May 18 and 19. Doc.
1; Doc, 3. The two expert reports Plaintiffs filed with their motion for preliminary injunction
indicate that those experts were working on reports in the interim and in turn the Plaintiffs were
putting together their evidence to support a preliminary injunction motion during that seven-week
period. See Ohio State Conf. ofN.A.A.C.P., 768 F.3d at 560-61 (rejecting a laches defense when
the defendant did not "explainQ how Plaintiffs could have more quickly produced the voluminous
record evidence in this case in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, nor . . .
produce[] any evidence that Plaintiffs purposefully delayed").
Moreover, the delay between the signing of the new state legislation and the May lawsuit
filing was not unfairly prejudicial to the Defendants. Defendants were on notice that their at-large
41
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 41 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

commissioner elections were opposed by the Tribe and may violate the VRA months before the
complaint was filed in May 2022. Russell, on behalf of the Tribe, had advocated against at-large
commissioner elections since October 2021. HE 5; HE N; Doc. 1 at 8; Doc. 7 at 3; Doc. 11 at 2.
The Commission appeared to accept the legitimacy of the Tribe's concerns around that time. It
notified the Tribe that it intended to abandon its at-large election scheme in November 2021 and
considered several new redistricting plans in late January and early February 2022. HE 5; HE 0;
HE R; HE U; Doc. 1 at 9-10; Doc. 1-1; Doc. 7 at 4; Doc. 11 at 2. In February 2022, the
Commission moved toward adopting an Ordinance for redistricting for 2024 and 2026 and beyond,
but with the same at-large county-wide election of commissioners on November 8, 2022. HE 5;
HE 11; Doc. 1-1; Doc. 36 at 2; Doc. 37 at 3. The final vote adopting that resolution following the
requisite two readings was on February 22, 2022. HE S at 4; HE T at 3-6; HE 5 at 31, 35-38.
The legislature then took up Defendants' request for a statutory amendment to allow for its
preferred plan to be implemented, which legislation the Governor ultimately signed in March 2022.
Here, the Defendants were responsible for delaying the adoption of a new redistricting plan over
a month past the February statutory deadline and delaying implementation until the 2024 election,
and Defendants were on notice that the at-large county-wide single-district election they intended
to hold in November 2022 potentially violated the VRA. Under those circumstance, the
Defendants have not established the undue prejudice necessary for a laches defense. See
15 Plaintiffs did not inexcusably delay in raising their concerns about vote dilution until October
2021 when the County sought community input on its new redistricting plan. See Garza v. County
of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 772 (9th Cir. 1990) ("Because of the ongoing nature of [voter
dilution in violation of the VRA], plaintiffs' present [voter dilution] claim ought not be barred by
laches"); Blackmoon v. Charles Mix County, 386 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 1114-15 (D.S.D. 2005)
(rejecting a laches defense to a complaint stating that at-large commissioner districts that had been
in place for 37 years violated the VRA when the complaint was brought after new census results
were published requiring redistricting).
42
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 42 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

Dickinson, 933 F.2d at 502 (holding that a county clerk affidavit "stating that confusion and
additional costs would be imposed if a second primary election were required ..., even if credited,
[did] not outweigh the plaintiffs' right to a hearing on the merits" and was "inadequate to establish
the prejudice necessary for laches"); Lucas v. Townsend, 486 U.S. 1301, 1305(1988) (Kennedy,
J., in chambers) (stating that in the face of the plaintiffs' "obvious diligence in seeking an
adjudication of their rights prior to the election[,]" "[p]ermitting [an] election [that violates the
VRA] to go forward would place the burdens of inertia and litigation delay on those whom the
[VRA] was intended to protect").
IV. Relief
Upon finding a Section 2 violation, the district court must develop a constitutional
remedy and give the defendant the first opportunity to submit a remedial plan. If
the defendant refuses to submit a remedial plan, it is then up to the district court to
fashion its own remedy or adopt a remedial plan proposed by the plaintiff. In
formulating a remedial plan, the first and foremost obligation of the district court
is to correct the Section 2 violation. Second, the court's remedy should achieve
population equality while avoiding, when possible, the use of multi-member
districts and it should be narrowly tailored. Third, the remedial plan must not
violate Sections 2 or 5 of the VRA. Finally, the plan should not intrude on state
policy any more than is necessary to uphold the requirements of the Constitution.
Cottier v. City of Martin, 551 F.3d 733, 743 (8th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up and citations omitted); see
also Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. ofEduc., 402 U.S. 1, 15 (1971) ("Once a right and a
violation have been shown, the scope of a district court's equitable powers to remedy past wrongs
is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies."); Covington v. North
Carolina, 270 F. Supp. 3d 881, 889 (M.D.N.C. 2017) (same).
Defendants as aforementioned argue that it is too close to the election for any remedial plan
to be formulated. Defendants' argument is not without support and deserves to be addressed. In
Sims, the Supreme Court of the United States reasoned that
43
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 43 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

certain circumstances, such as where an impending election is imminent and a
State's election machinery is already in progress, equitable considerations might
justify a court in withholding the granting of immediately effective relief in a
legislative apportionment case, even though the existing apportionment scheme
was found invalid [under the VRA]. In awarding or withholding immediate relief,
a court is entitled to and should consider the proximity of a forthcoming election
and the mechanics and complexities of state election laws, and should act and rely
upon general equitable principles. With respect to the timing of relief, a court can
reasonably endeavor to avoid a disruption of the election process which might result
from requiring precipitate changes that could make unreasonable or embarrassing
demands on a State in adjusting to the requirements of the court's decree.
Sims, 377 U.S. at 585; see also Wright v. Sumter Cnty. Bd. of Elections and Registration, 361 F.
Supp. 3d 1296, 1302 (M.D. Ga. 2018), affd, 979 F.3d 1282 (llth Cir. 2020).
Defendants also point to Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 ('2006), and Merrill v. Milligan,
142 S. Ct. 879 (2022). Doc. 35 at 6; Doc. 37 at 11-16; Doc. 44 at 3-10. In Purcell, the Supreme
Court declined to issue an injunction to prevent a voter identification law from taking effect less
than a month before a general election when no factual findings on the merits of the plaintiffs'
claim had been made. 549 U.S. at 5-6. The Court reasoned that "the facts in the[] case[ were]
hotly contested, and no bright line separate[d] permissible election-related regulation from
unconstitutional infringements. . . . Given the imminence of the election and the inadequate time
to resolve the factual disputes, our action today shall of necessity allow the election to proceed
without an injunction suspending the voter identification rules." IcL (citation omitted). Purcell is
readily distinguishable as this Court has made extensive preliminary findings of fact and the
general election remains several months off.
The 2022 Merrill decision was decided as a part of the Supreme Court's emergency docket
or what some call "the shadow docket." Thus, constitutional law scholars rightfully could debate
what, if any, precedential weight to give the portion of Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence to which
Defendants cite. In that concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh interpreted Purcell as standing for the
44
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 44 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

principle "that federal district courts ordinarily should not enjoin state election laws in the period
close to an election[.]" Merrill, 142 S, Ct. at 879 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). "It is one thing for
a State on its own to toy with its election laws close to a State's elections. But it is quite another
thing for a federal court to swoop in and re-do a State's election laws in the period close to an
election." Id, at 881. Justice Kavanaugh continued that the Purcell principle is not absolute but
"heightens the showing necessary for a plaintiff to overcome the State's extraordinarily strong
interest in avoiding late, judicially imposed changes to its election laws and procedures." Id.
Justice Kavanaugh then proposed a new test for when a district court may enjoin an imminent
election, stating that before granting such relief a court should determine that "(i) the underlying
merits are entirely clearcut in favor of the plaintiff; (ii) the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm
absent the injunction; (iii) the plaintiff has not unduly delayed bringing the complaint to court; and
(iv) the changes in question are at least feasible before the election without significant cost,
confusion, or hardship." Id.
For the sake of analysis, applying Justice Kavanaugh's test does not foreclose the
possibility of relief here. What is "entirely clearcut" of course is in the eye of the beholder, and
here the probability of a VRA violation is sufficiently clearcut to allow for relief as discussed
above. Similarly, this Opinion and Order has discussed why irreparable harm to Plaintiffs exists
absent the injunction. In discussing why laches does not bar Plaintiffs' claims, this Court has
explained that Plaintiffs did not unduly delay bringing the complaint to the court. What remains
then is the fourth factor under Justice Kavanaugh's test, which is whether "the changes in question
are at least feasible before the election without significant cost, confusion, or hardship." Id.
Under the VRA, the Defendants are to have the first opportunity to submit a remedial plan
upon the finding of a Section 2 violation. Defendants' counsel at the preliminary injunction
45
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 45 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

hearing did not want to discuss any remedial plan at all, sticking with the positions that no VRA
violation exists and that this Court lacks authority to redress any violation anyway so close to the
election and thus should dismiss the case for being moot. Much of this Opinion and Order explains
why Defendants' legal position is mistaken. If time indeed is too short for any reasonable relief
before the 2022 general election, this Court has signaled on page 38 what may well be the outcome.
After all, a likely VRA violation without a remedy fashioned does not serve the ends of justice, let
alone the VRA.
Plaintiffs have presented a bit of a moving target as to what precisely they want for relief,
but at the close of the preliminary injunction hearing proposed that this Court order a special
election be administered in early 2023 to elect two commissioners from District 1 (the Reservation
district). Plaintiffs no longer appear to prefer their five-district plan to the County's two-district
plan, if they are able to have two Native-preferred commissioners elected at the soonest possible
date. A special election as the Plaintiffs urge is not unprecedented. "It is within the scope of [a
district court's] equity powers to order a governmental body to hold special elections to redress
violations of the VRA." Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens v. County of Albany, 357 F.3d 260, 262
(2d Cir. 2004) (collecting cases). "It [is a] court's task to determine whether, under all the
circumstances, implementation should be delayed until the next scheduled election or should occur
immediately through the ordering of a special election." Neal v. Harris, 837 F.2d 632, 634 (4th
Cir. 1987) (per curiam); see also Wright, 361 F. Supp. 3d at 1305-06 (granting an injunction
enjoining an upcoming election when it was not feasible to implement a new redistricting plan that
complied with VRA before an upcoming election); Ketchum v. City Council of Chicago, 630 F.
Supp. 551, 565 (N.D. 111. 1985) ("Federal courts have often ordered special elections to remedy
violations of voting rights. Prospective relief alone is of little consequence to the many voters who
46
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 46 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

sought to vote and could not do so effectively." (cleaned up and citations omitted)); Arbor Hill
Concerned Citizens, 357 F.3d at 263 (holding a district court had equitable power to order a special
election upon determining that an upcoming election would be conducted under a redistricting plan
that violated the VRA). This option of a special election, however, involves the messiness of not
allowing the three candidates qualified for the ballot to run, holding over the three commissioners
whose terms have expired so that the Commission does not lose quorum, directing a special
election likely to have reduced voter turnout for partial terms sometime in 2023 perhaps with a
primary before it and presumably for three positions, deciding whether one or two of those
positions ought to be in the Reservation district, renumbering the districts in some way to fix the
conflict with SDCL § 7-8-1, and sweeping aside quite a number of state statutes in order to
accomplish such a special election.
This Court is weighing another option to allow the November of 2022 general election to
proceed in a way where three commissioners are elected from among the six qualified for the
ballot, but in non-partisan races within the two new commissioner districts the Commission
created. Bolman and Janis would run against one another for a single seat in what Lyman County
denotes as District 1 (but which this Court would relabel District 1-2 to permit staggered terms
and elections under SDCL § 7-8-1), and with Reis, Huffman, Schelske and Johnson running
against one another for two seats in what Lyman County denotes as District 2 (but which this Court
would relabel District 3-4-5 to permit staggered terms and elections under SDCL § 7-8-1). This
Court has found no South Dakota law mandating that county commissioner elections be partisan
affairs. This option seems to be the only way to allow for staggered terms and elections for Lyman
County commissioners from the two districts and allows for the Reservation district to achieve two
Native-preferred commissioners after the 2024 election. This Court floats this possibility,
47
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 47 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

understanding that it is mere dicta, to allow the parties to address it at the next hearing this Court
intends to conduct to determine a remedy. Regardless of what this Court does, the Ordinance does
not comply with SDCL § 7-8-1 and must be changed, and that could be done by this Court
declaring the Reservation district to be "District 2," such that it elects its two commissioners in
2024; or by having this Court declare that the Reservation district be renamed District 1-2, with
the remainder of the County being a single district renamed District 3-4-5 and with non-partisan
commissioner elections proceeding that way in November of 2022.
Lyman County is a small county and if demographic trends hold is headed to a point where
it could be evenly divided between Native American and non-Native American residents.
Cooperation between the Tribe and the County, between Tribal members and non-Tribal members,
is crucial to the future ofLyman County. If the County does not come forward with an appropriate
remedial plan, this Court can impose its own. However, it would behoove the parties to work
together to achieve a result that serves the competing concerns while remedying the VRA issue
promptly.
V. Conclusion and Order
For the reasons discussed, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs' IVIotion for Preliminary Injunction, Doc. 3, is granted depending
upon this Court determining proper injunctive relief. It is further
ORDERED that the Defendants propose an appropriate remedial plan in writing to this
Court and to the Plaintiffs no later than seven (7) days after this Opinion and Order issues. It is
finally
ORDERED that the parties cooperate to set a hearing on an injunctive remedy to occur by
videoconference if the parties prefer within the next fourteen (14) days.
48
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 48 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>

DATED this //^day of August, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
c^s^^z
)BERTO A. LANGI	ROBERTO
CHIEF JUDGE
49
Case 3:22-cv-03008-RAL Document 55 Filed 08/11/22 Page 49 of 49 PageID #: <pageID>