Municipal Insurance Pools and Disenfranchisement in Indian Country

Abstract

ObjectiveOur objective is to establish the impact of a litigation pattern used by defendants in voting rights cases in Indian Country which relies on municipal insurance pools and the barring of fee recovery.MethodsWe use history and case studies from four states to demonstrate the argument.ResultsCourt is the only option for challenging disenfranchisement of voters, but cases require financial resources often unavailable to Native American plaintiffs. Defendants, typically state and local governments, do not face similar resource constraints as they participate in municipal insurance pools. Defendants, therefore, attempt to raise litigation costs to pressure plaintiffs to dispose of cases. If defendants think they will lose, they settle, preventing plaintiffs from recovering litigation costs or setting a precedent. This form of voting rights infringement discourages others from filing lawsuits as the financial impact can be devastating.ConclusionWe conclude that the states provide a new arena to litigate voting rights cases.