many of them live on reservations without standard addresses.
“many of them live on reservations without standard addresses.”
______________
“As far as I know, there are no reservations in Missouri. That’s how the state kept out Indian casinos.”
_______________________________________________
This is one very confused article, hanamizu. LOL North Dakota’s state law is upheld by the Supreme Court, rejecting the excuse of ‘no standard addresses.’
And Missouri’s law is the messy one, yes? It reads like they cannot show information about Voter ID and yet they can show information about documents for proof for eligibility for voting...? The Judge/s really made a Justice John Roberts type of ruling!!
I’m not surprised; it used to be illegal to be an Indian in Missouri. Many, many Indians in the old days refused to identify themselves as Indians, out of fear of persecution. My father-in-law, God rest his soul, who was a full-blood Loyal Shawnee, said that when he was growing up in Oklahoma, Indians were treated worse than blacks used to be treated. And that was when the Klan was still active in Oklahoma.
Since reservations are viewed as “sovereign nations” under US treaty law, there shouldn’t be any problem with listing a recognized Reservation as where an Indian legally lives.
Also, there might be a General Post Office/Box Number that is recognized as a “legal address” for receiving mail, so, as the judge said in the movie “Miracle on 34th Street” (?), “If the Post Office recognizes this man as Santa Claus with an address at the North Pole, who am I to dispute it” (or something like that). The same would apply to a registered reservation member of a recognized tribe.
Some judges just like to fuck around with Republicans and elections. he’ll be overturned and made a fool of by a higher and saner court.