On a clear Saturday afternoon in 1947, two Yavapai members of Arizona’s Fort McDowell Reservation walked into the Maricopa County registrar’s office fully intent on registering to vote as Democrats for the upcoming election. World War II veteran Frank Harrison and tribal chairman Harry Austin, like so many other Americans, looked to the ballot box not only as a chance to participate in the political process but also as an opportunity to influence meaningful change in their everyday lives and the lives of fellow Indians on the reservation. Yet, Harrison and Austin’s hopes were quickly dashed as the county recorder, Roger G. Laveen, rejected their application citing section 2, article 7, of the Arizona State Constitution, which stipulated American Indians were clearly “persons under guardianship” of the United States and therefore ineligible to vote.1 Unsatisfied, both men entered into a long legal battle in an effort to appeal such discriminatory legislation and rectify the disenfranchisement of American Indians in Arizona. The lawsuit eventually reached the Arizona Supreme Court where the plaintiffs won a substantial victory in favor of Indigenous civil rights. The case garnered national attention and support from myriad organizations. The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the U.S. assistant attorney general all offered amicus curiae both in defense of Indians’ right to vote and in opposition to the County’s biased law. The significance of Harrison v. Laveen cannot be overemphasized as it reflects the prisms of race, status, and citizenship occurring during the late 1940s, and showcases the pivotal steps American Indians took in shaping their destiny through legal means. Harrison and Austin’s lawsuit emerged almost a quarter century after the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted all

中文翻译：

---

Harrison v. Laveen 的里程碑式判决：亚利桑那印第安人和投票权

1947 年一个晴朗的星期六下午，亚利桑那州麦克道尔堡保留地的两名 Yavapai 成员走进马里科帕县登记官办公室，全心全意地登记为即将举行的选举的民主党人投票。二战老兵弗兰克·哈里森和部落主席哈里·奥斯汀和许多其他美国人一样，不仅将投票箱视为参与政治进程的机会，而且还将其视为影响日常生活和生活中有意义的改变的机会保留地中的印第安人。然而，哈里森和奥斯汀的希望很快就破灭了，因为县记录员罗杰·拉文 (Roger G. Laveen) 以亚利桑那州宪法第 2 条第 7 条为由拒绝了他们的申请，该条规定美洲印第安人显然是美国的“受监护人”因此没有资格投票。1 都不满意，两人进入了一场长期的法律斗争，试图对这种歧视性立法提出上诉，并纠正亚利桑那州对美国印第安人的剥夺权利。诉讼最终到达亚利桑那州最高法院，原告在那里赢得了有利于土著民权的实质性胜利。此案引起了全国范围内无数组织的关注和支持。美国印第安人全国代表大会 (NCAI)、美国公民自由联盟 (ACLU) 和美国助理司法部长都提出了法庭之友的意见，以捍卫印第安人的投票权并反对该县有偏见的法律。哈里森诉拉文案的重要性再怎么强调也不为过，因为它反映了 1940 年代后期发生的种族、地位和公民身份的棱镜，并展示了美国印第安人通过法律手段塑造他们的命运所采取的关键步骤。哈里森和奥斯汀的诉讼是在 1924 年《印度公民法》通过后近四分之一个世纪出现的，该法案授予所有