Buckanaga v. Sisseton Independent School District Memorandum Opinon
Public Court Documents
March 5, 1985

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Schnapper. Buckanaga v. Sisseton Independent School District Memorandum Opinon, 1985. 7cc483a6-e292-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/d8f8b9ba-d360-49da-a210-61118abc0db7/buckanaga-v-sisseton-independent-school-district-memorandum-opinon. Accessed April 29, 2025.
Copied!
r tl - i' "ir- : sL't^^-c,,( | - " / JL, ^.q,r't''ffhited States District Court ( ' t District of South Dekota ..ORTIIERN DIVISION Donald J. Porter U.S. Dittict Jdg Rm. {13 - U.S. Cotrrthouse Pierre, South Dakota 57501 KaY Nikolas Dakota PIains LegaI Services P.O. Box 250 Sisseton, South Dakota 57262 E.ECEIl/E'D l,i.riR 0 3 lgg5 ff,.7'",,8 A'UIErEA'I E:G,r6 6,619 March 5, 1985 Jeanette WolfIeY Kim Jerome Gottschalk Ani t,a Remerowski Native Arnerican RighLs Fund 1506 BroadwaY Boulder, Colorado 80302 AtCorneYS for Plaintiffs David Gilbertson 5I0 First. Avenue, East Sisset.on, South Dakot'a 57262 AttorneY Eor Defendants RE: CIVIL NO. 84-1025 CELINE BUCKANAGA, FRANCIS GILL, HARVEY DU!4ARCE, NANCY SMITH, Individually and on behalf of att others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. SISSETON INDEPENDENT scHooIJ DISTRICT NO. 54-5, South Dakota;|'IAURICERABENBERG,Individuallyandinhis of f icial capacit.y as superiniendent of the sisseton Independent school District, sout,h Dakota, GLEN HULL, ROBERT HORTON, RICIIARD FONDER, LEROY HELLWTG, DARYL D. RUSSELL, LYNNETA K. FISIIER, I'IILTON LEISETH, DELANO QHRISTIANSON, AND STEVEN PALLESEN, Individually and-in their capacities as members of t.he Sisseton Independent- School etard, Sout.h Dakota; LAVERNA AADLAND, Individually and in her oEf icial capacit.y as Business Manager oE the S isseton Independent School District, Def endant's . Dear Counsel: MEIvIORANDUM OPINION plaintiffs sue under the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. S 1973b, and Consti tution . the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to t'he This court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. SS I33l and 1343. Venue is Proper in this court, under 28 U.S.C. S t39t(b). I plaintif f s are each Unit.ed StaLes citizens , of Arnerican Indian descent, and each resides within and is a registered voter of the Sisset.on Independent School District, in this staEe. Defendants are the District, the school board, the superint,endent, and the Business Manager of the District, and the county Audit,or of Roberts count.y, south Dakota. A1l defendants except, the District are sued both as oEficials and as indivi- duaIs. The District is a public school district organized and governed under south DakoEa law. (SDCL I3-8-39). The Dist'rict is locat.ed in a rural area in the northeastern part of this state. The total population of the District is 5,628, of which I,908 are Indians. The District includes all or ParC of eight'een townships in Roberts County and Part of t'wo townships in Marshall County. Plaintiffs alIege t.hat the present syseem of at-large elec- t.ions for members of the school board has been imposed or applied by defendant.s in a manner which denies or abridges, on accounC of race, the right of the plaintif f s t'o vote and t'hus Indian ci ci zens of the Distr ict have less opportun ity than whites t'o participate in and to elect candidates of their choice' in viola- rion of 42 U.S.C. S I923 (I982). Plaintiffs request the court to declare that the D istr ict i s di lut.ing Lhe voting strength of t'he Indian residents of the District; t,hat the District be en joined from holding any further school board election under the present system, and that the court order int.o effect a plan for school board elections which wilI remedy the violations alleged. I. this act,ion is submitted t.o the court for decision upon an "Arnended Joint St,ipulation" of Fact,s, uPon aIl the pleadings including briefs on the merits and proposed findings of fact filed by plaintiffs and by deEendants, upon all the depositions taken by the parties and now filed wit,h the clerk, uPon aII affi- daviCs, and upon all exhibits and documents filed with the clerk. In addition the coure heard counsel for the parties in oral argument, covering the merits, and the transcript of the oral argument is a parc of the file. Both parties have briefed the cause as one turning on the a.oplication to the facEs here of Section 2 of the Voting Rights AcE, as amended in the 1982 extension of the Act (42 U.S.C. s 1973 ) . plaintiffs' brief ciEes and discusses t,he Iegislative history oE amended section 2 of the L982 extension of E,he Voting Rights Act. Defendants cite the L982 amendment and discuss its applica- tion here, dS do plaintiffs. Also see., Jones v. CiEv oE Lubbock, 727 F.2d 364, 378 (5r.h Cir. 1984) for an analysis of the legisla- -4- tive history of t,he 1982 amendment of section 2. ApplyingthefacesheretoLhecriteriasetout'inthe Iegislat,ive history, the court wiII first discuss certain of t'he factswhichitdeemsparticularlyPertinent'. II. The District is 436 square miles in area. The 1980 popula- tion was 5,628. There are thus just' under 13 people Per square mi le. There are two municipalities. The largest, sisseEon, is approximatley2,so0peoplelL,5TTregisteredvot,ers56tof population 1982 figures I ' The other municipaliCy is Peever, approximately 230 people tI70 registered voters 73t of population I982 figuresl ' Thus approximaCely 3,030 people Iive in the two municipalities and approximat'ely2,600peopleliveinEheruralareasofthe District so that. if the two municipalities are omitt'ed' there are approximately 2,600 people in 436 square miIes, aPProximately 5 people Per sguare miIe. Thus one factor which makes t,his case unique is the striking- Iy rural character of the District, Populat'ion-wise' Not only is there no evidence that sout.h Dakota has a historic background of racial discriminaton comparable to the South, where mosE of the cases ciced on this issue arose, further, the Populat'ion numbers and urban character of the areas involved in most' of t'he ciced -q- cases are so difEerent from this District t'hat the cases are of quest,ionable assistance in appraising t,he result uPon def endants of t.he at-Iarge district system. An alternative plan t'o creat'e additional election districts, €.9., nine separate districts choosing one board member from each, could well do all Dist'rict resident.s more harm than good' Flgures in the amended stipulat,ion of Facts (ct. f iIe no. 57 p' 5 of stipulat'ion) show II townships with fewer t,han 50 registered voters' with 20 whole or part.ial townships I establishing nine singIe member district's would inevit.ably produce some very t'hinly poPulat'ed districts' III. under the present at.-Iarge system'a Pot'ent'ial candidate need only be eligible to vote in the District. There is no oEher pre- condicion t.o candidacy except to timely Eile a candidate petition signed by t.wenty eligibte voEers of the District' There is no primary, no slating, no need to win by a majoricy of all votes casc; and no ban on "single-shot" voting. t'loreover ' plaint'if f s have never charged during the suit' t'haE the Distri'ct' has in any manner discouraged any Indian resident f rom regiStering t'o voEe or from vot.ing. No witness by affidavit or deposieion testified that, he or she was in any manner discouraged from vot'ing by the Eact t,hat t.he same election officials (aII whit'e) have been in charge at the two polling places, Sisseton and Peever' Since I973 -6- The court f inds t,hat the dist'ances t'o the polling place at' Peever, and t'o Si'sset'on, for rural vot,ersr ;r5 shown at Par. 22, def endant.sr proposed f indings of fact (ct' f iIe 70 ' p'5) are not' unreasonable, given the rural area involved' The court also finds thaE the District school board were justified in not establishing one or more polIing places wichin the Sisseton-wahpe- ton reservation in t.he District, absent' t'he express concurrence of t.he Tribe through its council. The offer to do so by the board ,,ras not acced on by t'he eribal council' The court also finds ghat the voluntary change oE the lumUer of members oE t.he District school board in 1966 from five to nine had the ef fect, of not ressening the opportunit'y for rndian District vocers co become candidates; instead, the change made it' more IikelythaEsomelndiancandidateswouldbeelected. IV. oneoEthedefendanLschoolboardmembersinthiscaseisan Indian,(DarylRussell).Fortwelveofthepastsixteenyears,6o Indian has served on the school board and during 1973-74 two were Serving.Inall,threelndianshavebeenelectedtotheschool board since 1959r oo€ of whom (Francis Crawford) ran unopposed' ForSometimePaSt,fouroft'henineboardmembershavebeen eligiblecorunonlyiftheylivedinaruralarea.EachoEt'he remaining five board members could run wheLher they lived in -7- sisseton or peever or in a rural area. Every year, in June, (Def. Proposed Findingsr oo.22, P.5 (ct. file no.70) at a school board election held under state law, three board members are elected, each to a three year term. If there are more than three candidates, the three receiving the highest number oE votes are eIecLed. The Sisseton Independent School District is not unusually Iarge, considering t.he rural area and sParse population' The court cannot find that the present size of t.he District hampers an Indian vot.er or Indian candidate more than if the District were srnaller, yeE seill large enough t'o be f iscally able to con- l duce an independent school dist rict., under st,ate law. V. Many or most of t.he Indian residents oE the District are enrolled members of t.he Sisseton-Wahpeton Indian Tribe. Tribal headquarLers are Iocated within the Dist.rict and certain farm land or pasture land in the District is, under federal law, held in trust by t.he UniteC States Eor the Indi.an otdner. The tribe is quasi-sovereign and is self-governing under treaty and federal law. The court finds that it is not unusual that no Indians have been candidates for city office in Sis.set.on or for county office in Roberts County. The court f inds that the enrolled t.ribal Inoian -8- quige naturally looks to the t.ribal government, in the way that' white residents look to t.he city and count,y government. Ihe court accepts the opinion and t.est,imony of expert witness Burns and does not accept, the conclusion or redistricting plan of expert witness Henderson. The court finds t,hat, Burns is better gualified in this unique case to give expert testimony, bY reason of his Lraining and exPerience in this seate. The court judicially notices that South Dakota became a stat,e in 1889. The court Einds that Indians were permitted to vote in Roberts County during t.he years referred to in the affidavit of att,orney Milton Cameron The court finds that lacking Bureau of fndian Affairs cer- tification or official TribaI certificat.ion as to enrollment' in the tribe, the evidence is not suf f icient t,o establish accurately the identity of each voter as to Indian or non-Indian and also f inds that iC cannot accept wit,ness Hendersonrs opinion testimony as to which candidate any particular fndian voter cast a ballot Eor in a District election. The court finds no evidence that District camPaigns have been characteri zed by overE or subt'le racial appeals. The court further judicially notices that Mr. Ben Reifel, an American Indian of South Dakota, was elected to t.he U.S. House of Representatives and served ten years in the House, during t'he -9- period of I95l-71. The court also judicially notices that Ramon Roubideaux, an American Indian of south Dakota now living in Rapid city and practicing Iaw there, was nominated for Attorney General of sout,h Dakota by the Democratic party at the party con- vention and ran statewide, in I970, coming wit'hin about' 2'000 votes of winning the office' CONCLUSION The court has carefully considered aII the factors set out by congress in the legislative history of amended section 2 of the 1982 Voting Rights Act revision, and has carefully considered the tot,ality oE the factual circumstances and concludes that the District at-Iarge school board elect'ion process does not violate section 2. The court also concludes that, the plan offered by plaintiffs would result, in a lesser compliance with Section 2 and' is offered to obtain Proport.ional representation and on no other basis. Accordingly, enforcement cannot be ordered under section 2(b) ' TheplaintiEfsdidnotargueorbriefanyissueastoehe Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment that was not already covered by plaintiffs briefing and argument under the Voting Rights Act' and the court concludes plaintiff has failed to show a violation of the Act or of the Fourteenth or Fifteent'h Amendments' -10- This opinion constitut,es the findings of fact and concluglons of law of t,he court. Judgment, shall be entered dismissing t,he complaint on the ruer i t,s . BY THE COURT: Wy-rePA/|-'re ffiStnrct JUDGE