Skip to content

Judge allows Natives Vote shirts at South Dakota polling sites

Judge allows voters to wear "Natives Vote" shirts after lawsuit claims First Amendment violation.

Not Journal • • 2 min read
Michigan residents turn out to vote in the midterm elections at Sibley Elementary School in Grand Rapids, Mich., on Tuesday, Aug. 4, 2026 (Isaac Ritchey/The Grand Rapids Press via AP)

Michigan residents turn out to vote in the midterm elections at Sibley Elementary School in Grand Rapids, Mich., on Tuesday, Aug. 4, 2026 (Isaac Ritchey/The Grand Rapids Press via AP)

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on Tuesday allowing voters in Charles Mix County, South Dakota, to wear apparel featuring the phrase "Natives Vote" at polling locations. The ruling came after Lonnie Provost, a member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe, filed a lawsuit alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was denied a ballot in 2024 for wearing such a shirt.

U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier determined that Provost was likely to succeed on his claim that the restrictions were unconstitutional. In her order, the judge stated that the shirt conveys a nonpartisan message regarding voter participation without advocating for any specific candidate, political party, or ballot measure. She concluded that the defendants' treatment of the message as prohibited campaign material lacked an objectively reasonable basis.

The lawsuit, filed Monday against Charles Mix County Auditor Jason Gant, noted that Provost was turned away from the Wagner National Guard Armory during the 2024 general election. According to the complaint, other Native voters were also required to remove or cover similar shirts to participate in the election. Auditor Gant had previously maintained that the attire violated South Dakota’s electioneering statute, which prohibits campaign materials within 100 feet of a polling place.

Samantha Blencke, a senior staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, which co-represented Provost alongside Robins Kaplan, stated that voters should not have to choose between expressing pride in Native electoral participation and casting a ballot. The court's order prohibits officials from denying Provost a ballot or requiring him to remove, cover, or turn his apparel inside out. The ruling remains effective until voting is completed in the county, while the lawsuit continues to seek further declaratory and permanent injunctive relief.

Share