The Map That Almost Silenced a Community
How North Dakota Tried to Erase Native Voters
Three Native American legislators serve in North Dakota's state government today. Last year, there were zero. What changed? A federal judge stepped in and called out what he saw as a deliberate attempt to silence Native voters through gerrymandering.
But this week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that's both a lifeline and a warning: Native communities can keep fighting for their voting rights—for now. The emphasis is on "for now."
Here's why this case could reshape voting rights for millions of Americans, and why Justice Neil Gorsuch's surprising vote has everyone scratching their heads.
The Map That Cut Native Power in Half
In 2021, North Dakota redrew its voting districts as required by law every decade. The result was devastating for Native representation: the state cut Native-majority districts from two to one, splitting up tribal communities and diluting their political power.
The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa and Spirit Lake Tribe weren't having it. They sued, arguing the new map violated the Voting Rights Act by deliberately weakening Native political influence.
A federal judge agreed. He ordered a fairer map for the 2024 elections, and the results were immediate: three Native candidates won legislative seats, tripling representation overnight.
Case closed, right? Not even close.
The Appeals Court Bombshell
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a shocking twist. Rather than arguing about whether discrimination occurred, they made a much more radical claim: tribes and Native voters shouldn't be allowed to sue at all.
According to their ruling, only the federal government can enforce key parts of the Voting Rights Act. Private citizens and tribal nations would be locked out of the courthouse.
If this ruling stood, it wouldn't just affect North Dakota. Native communities in six other states—including South Dakota, Minnesota, and Nebraska—would lose their primary tool for fighting voting discrimination.
Supreme Court Hits the Brakes
Last week, the Supreme Court essentially said "hold on" by pausing the appeals court decision. The fair map stays in place, and tribes can still file voting rights lawsuits while the legal battle continues.
But this isn't a victory—it's a timeout. The Court didn't say the tribes were right or wrong. They just prevented the rules from changing mid-game.
The real fight is still coming, and it could determine whether Native Americans can defend their voting rights at all.
The Gorsuch Mystery
Here's what has legal experts puzzled: Justice Neil Gorsuch voted against the pause. This is the same justice who has consistently supported tribal sovereignty and Native rights in previous cases.
Gorsuch joined Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—typically the Court's most conservative voices on voting rights—in opposing the stay. Nobody knows exactly why, but it's raised serious concerns among Native rights advocates who have counted him as an ally.
When the Court potentially hears the full case later this year, Gorsuch's position will be crucial to watch.
What's Really at Stake
Strip away the legal complexity, and this case boils down to one question: Can communities protect their own voting rights, or must they rely on federal prosecutors who may or may not prioritize their cases?
If the appeals court ruling ultimately wins, Native Americans in seven states would be uniquely vulnerable. When facing voter suppression or gerrymandering, they'd have to hope the Department of Justice decides their case is worth pursuing—something that happens rarely and unpredictably.
For tribal nations that have government-to-government relationships with the United States, it would mean having fewer legal protections than ordinary citizens. That's both ironic and deeply troubling.
Why This Matters Beyond Native Communities
This case is playing out as voting rights face challenges nationwide. Communities of color are fighting redistricting plans, voter ID laws, and other measures that make voting harder.
The North Dakota case could set a precedent that goes far beyond Native American voting rights. If private citizens and advocacy groups lose the ability to enforce civil rights laws in court, it would fundamentally shift how voting rights are protected in America.
The Supreme Court's eventual decision won't just determine North Dakota's redistricting plan—it could determine whether communities under attack can defend themselves or must wait for federal prosecutors to act.
For Native Americans who have spent decades building political power after centuries of exclusion, the stakes couldn't be higher. The pause button has been pressed, but time is running out.