The Red Folder

Archived from May 13, 2024.

Key stories for the week, brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the Red Folder team.

Reading for the sake of reading sucks. Telling yourself to read to win a round is nice but ineffective. This condensed news brief helps you understand current domestic and international issues, analyze the news, and gives you opportunities to read more.

Domestic Stories

3 key domestic stories for the week:

1) South Carolina Redistricting Challenge: Level Impossible Rohan Dash

According to Article One of the United States Constitution, states across the nation are required to undergo redistricting every ten years, in coordination with the decennial census. However, for one state, being South Carolina, it’s a little more often than just every ten years.

South Carolina began using its current map in 2022. In January of 2023, the state's map was determined to be racist, primarily because of the way it was distributed, which limits the voting power of Black communities in certain regions. Specifically, Congressional District 1, focused on Charleston (just off to the southeast) was drawn in such a way that moved hundreds of thousands of South Carolinians, much to the benefit of the current controlling party. Although this has happened in other southern states in the recent past, this case has grown prominent.

A few months down the line, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case: Alexander (the President of the South Carolina Senate) v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. While the case is still going on, legal experts suggest that the Supreme Court has been sympathetic towards Alexander and the South Carolina redistricting officials, which may be due to the two both being a Republican majority.

Unfortunately, no decision has been made yet, which is bad news for the NAACP and those seeking a ruling forcing the redistricting to change. At the moment, South Carolina will be using the maps deemed unconstitutional simply because the decision hasn't been made, making it impractical to effectively change the map. And unfortunately, it looks like it will take some time for a change to effectively happen, because as seen in this Washington Post article, the Brennan Center's Democracy Program senior counsel Michael Li explains that it could take several election cycles before the district will be redrawn in such a way that it meets the appropriate guidelines.

To make matters worse, the changing of this district has already had actual results. Republican Nancy Mace won the seat for the 1st Congressional District back in 2020 by just 1%, allowing her to essentially flip a seat that had been democratic for the last thirty years. Just two years later, in 2022, following the redistricting, Mace would win by 14%. This is not a coincidence, rather the increase in her support can be attributed to the fact that the black community simply could not vote in that region. In 2024, this year, she may win the seat by an even greater margin, and only when redistricting is completed that is not biased, but more so fair will there actually be a change in who may win that seat.

Unfortunately, it will take time for the South Carolina congressional district to change. But in the end, it will be fair, just as how every other congressional redistricting procedure has happened.

Read more here:

3) Flamed and Deranged: The Future of Governor Kristi Noem AmandaLesly Miranda

The growing dispute between South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and the tribes in South Dakota has become a focal point of tension and controversy within the state, worsening her chances at becoming Donald Trump’s pick for vice president amidst current controversy over her new book.

At the heart of the conflict are issues surrounding tribal sovereignty, land rights, and economic development. Governor Noem's administration has clashed with tribal leaders over a range of issues, including the implementation of COVID-19 restrictions on tribal lands, efforts to tax online sales made by tribal businesses, and disputes over the use of fireworks in the Black Hills, a sacred site for many Native American tribes.

These disputes have exacerbated longstanding tensions between the state government and tribal nations, highlighting broader challenges in the relationship between Indigenous communities and state authorities. As the conflict continues to escalate, it underscores the importance of dialogue, cooperation, and respect for tribal sovereignty in addressing the complex issues facing Native American communities in South Dakota and beyond.

And now, they have gotten much worse. Governor Noem is now on the chopping block, banned from entering nearly 20% of her state after two more tribes banished her this week over comments she made earlier this year about tribal leaders benefitting from drug cartels.

According to the New York Post, “The Yankton Sioux Tribe voted Friday, the 10th, to ban Noem from their land in southeastern South Dakota just a few days after the Sisseton-Wahpeton Ovate tribe took the same action. The Oglala, Rosebud, Cheyenne River, and Standing Rock Sioux tribes had already taken action to keep her off their reservations. Three other tribes haven’t yet banned her.”

The ongoing unrest is growing and taking hold of the state as a whole and is affecting her public approval ratings, both in the state of South Dakota and nationwide.

Kristi Noem's banishment from the tribes in South Dakota could have significant repercussions for her re-election prospects. South Dakota's Native American population constitutes a considerable voting bloc, and their support or opposition can sway election outcomes. The governor's contentious relationship with tribal leaders and her administration's handling of issues affecting Indigenous communities may alienate a significant portion of this electorate. Additionally, the banishment could galvanize support for her opponents, who may seize upon the discord between Noem and the tribes to mobilize voters against her. In a state where electoral margins can be tight, losing the support of Native American voters could pose a formidable challenge to Noem's re-election bid. As such, navigating and potentially reconciling with the tribal nations may become a crucial aspect of her campaign strategy moving forward.

The tribes in South Dakota have issued a range of statements regarding Kristi Noem's banishment, reflecting a spectrum of viewpoints and concerns within Indigenous communities. Some tribal leaders have condemned the banishment as a troubling escalation in the ongoing disputes between the state government and tribal nations, emphasizing the need for dialogue and respectful engagement to address underlying issues. Others have expressed frustration and disappointment with Governor Noem's administration, citing a pattern of disregard for tribal sovereignty and a lack of consultation on matters affecting Native American communities.

Additionally, some tribal representatives have called for accountability and reconciliation, urging state officials to recognize the rights and autonomy of tribal nations and work towards building trust and cooperation for the benefit of all South Dakotans.

Overall, the statements from tribes underscore the complexities of the relationship between Indigenous communities and state authorities, highlighting the importance of mutual respect, collaboration, and understanding in resolving conflicts and advancing the interests of all stakeholders.