SUBSCRIBE NOW AND SAVE 3 months just 99¢/month



Port: If you get two, and I get three, how in the world is that fair?

If the problem is vote dilution, why are we trying to solve it with more dilution?

PHOTO: District 4 subdivision proposal
North Dakota's redistricting committee approved a plan Wednesday, Sept. 29, to divide District 4 into two House subdistricts, one of which (4A) encompasses the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. Special to the Forum

MINOT, N.D. — " North Dakota plan for split districts gives Native Americans 'fairer representation,' advocates say."

So reads a recent headline from a typically thorough article by Michelle Griffith, but I have to admit that I'm struggling with that word.


Is the redistricting plan, which splits two legislative districts that encompass Native American reservations, really fairer than what we had?

Many of our state's Native American leaders believe so. Because of the way the map was drawn, in the two subdivided districts, one of the subdivisions is drawn so that it has a high percentage of Native American voters.


“All it does for us is it gives an opportunity to have stronger and fairer representation at the state legislative level,” Mark Fox , chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold, told Griffith.

But does it?

1306054+1119 Mark Fox.jpg
Reuters Photo Newly elected Three Affiliated Tribes council chairman Mark Fox stands at Crow Flies High Butte above the Missouri River on the Fort Berthold Reservation on Nov. 1.

Does packing Native American voters into a subdistrict really give them "stronger and fairer" representation?

“When you’re packed in with larger non-Native communities, it’s harder to get anybody from our own communities elected,” Nicole Donaghy, executive director of North Dakota Native Vote , told Griffith. “We get packed in these districts and our votes and our voices get diluted.”

But the subdistrict plan dilutes Native American voices too, doesn't it? Currently, the Fort Berthold Reservation is in District 4, which is represented by two representatives and one senator, all of whom are elected by the entire district.

Under the subdistrict plan, the people in District 4 only get to vote one senator, and then one of the two representatives, depending on which subdistrict they're in.


District 9, home to the Turtle Mountain Reservation , has also been subdivided.

In both districts, one of the subdistricts has been drawn to encompass the tribal voters.

Isn't that dilution? Sure, the tribal vote is more concentrated in the subdistrict, and not diluted by non-tribal voters, but that comes at the expense of the people in that district losing one elected representative.

Iris Walking Eagle 2.jpeg
Iris Walking Eagle, a field organizer with North Dakota Native Vote, outside the tribal offices and post office in Fort Totten, Spirit Lake Reservation. (Photo by Adam Willis/GroundTruth)

I'll admit that this entire exercise leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

We shouldn't be drawing political lines to reach specific political outcomes, generally, and creating districts based on race, specifically, feels like exactly the sort of political balkanization we should be trying to avoid.

But even setting those concerns aside, the arguments put forward for the subdistricts don't make any sense on their own merits.


If the problem is vote dilution, why are we trying to solve it with more dilution?

The citizens of North Dakota's two largest Native American communities have been packed into two subdistricts which have the practical effect of diluting their influence over the Legislature from three elected members to two.

I don't think we should feel good about that.

From the perspective of partisan politics, these subdivisions will change nothing. District 4 will likely elect a Democrat in the next cycle. District 9 will likely elect a Republican.

It's a wash.

But from the perspective of fairness? And basic arithmetic?

The plan stinks.

Supporters of the plan say it's what's required of us thanks to the federal Voting Rights Act and the way that law has been interpreted by the courts. They say the plan is fine because the ratio of voters to elected representatives still works out to be equal.

I say hogwash.

Two will never equal three, even if the courts and the lawyers and the politicians have convinced themselves otherwise.

To comment on this article, visit

Rob Port, founder of, is a Forum Communications commentator. Reach him on Twitter at @robport or via email at .

Opinion by Rob Port
Rob Port is a columnist and podcast host for the Forum News Service. Reach him at
What to read next
A school official frustrated with a reporter's coverage was able to convince a law enforcement agent to launch an investigation that included seizing that reporter's phone so she could comb through all the personal and professional information on it. That shouldn't have happened, and it cannot happen again.
Rep. Rick Becker was left with few good options. The ranks of his allies have been thinned, he's alienated vast swaths of his own political party, he's earned the enmity of leaders in the state's medical community, and the Trump-driven political shift that fueled his metamorphosis from thoughtful libertarian into a populist culture warrior isn't aging well. Who can blame him for opting out?
Supreme Court Justice Daniel Crothers talks about his re-election campaign, and a discussion of the controversy around the medical license of politician who has been outspoken about the COVID-19 pandemic in ways that aren't sitting well with his colleagues.
It's easy to fall for Russian propaganda and the logic of false equivalence.