Media Archives - Page 14 of 19

Early Treaties Prove That U.S. Founding Fathers Would Have Deemed VAWA Constitutional

A meeting of the legal minds: Leonhard, left, with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (Courtesy M. Brent Leonhard)

By Gale Courey Toensing, Indian Country Today Media Network

The statistics are horrifying: 34 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped in their lifetimes and 39 percent will be subjected to domestic violence; on some reservations, Native women are murdered at more than 10 times the national average; over 85 percent of Natives who are victims of rape or sexual assault describe their offenders as non-Indian. Under the current law, tribal courts have no jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indian perpetrators of felony violence against Native women, and U.S. attorneys decline 67 percent of the cases referred to them.

And yet in the waning days of the 112th Congress, Republican leaders in the House thwarted the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), killing off an 18-year-old piece of legislation that included provisions that would help decrease the epidemic of violence against Native women on Indian land. The Republicans specifically opposed provisions of a Senate version of the bill passed last April that would recognize concurrent tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit violent crimes against women on Indian lands, but a House bill passed in May dropped the provision and the two bills could not be reconciled during the lame-duck session of the 112th Congress. Some Republicans claim that expanding tribal jurisdiction is unconstitutional.

But M. Brent Leonhard, a deputy attorney general for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Oregon, says nine early treaties, some of them signed by the Founding Fathers, acknowledge the inherent sovereign right of tribes to exercise jurisdiction over non-Indians in Indian country and set a precedent for extending tribal jurisdiction in the VAWA. Leonhard explored these treaties and three famous related U.S. Supreme Court Indian law cases in the article “Closing a Gap in Indian Country Justice,” published in the Harvard Law School Journal on Racial and Ethnic Justice in October 2012.

The cases are Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, Duro v. Reina and United States v. Lara, and together they provide a clear illustration of the complexity of Indian law. In Oliphant the Supreme Court ruled that tribal courts do not have inherent jurisdiction to try and punish non-Indians and may not assume such jurisdiction unless specifically authorized to do so by Congress. In Duro the justices decided that tribal governments could not prosecute Indians who were members of other tribes for crimes committed on their reservations. That didn’t go over well with the tribes and in response, Congress provided a “Duro fix” by amending a section of the Indian Civil Rights Act that specifically authorized tribes to prosecute non-member Indians as an exercise of their inherent sovereign power. The Duro fix was challenged in the Lara case, in which a majority of the justices essentially upheld it. But, says Leonhard, “it is precarious to rely solely on the Court’s holding in Lara” to support the legality of what would essentially be an “Oliphant fix”—acknowledging the tribal power to prosecute non-Indians as an exercise of their inherent sovereign power as opposed to an exercise of congressionally delegated federal power. That’s why the treaties are important.

Leonhard says he wrote “Closing a Gap in Indian Country Justice” because he had been involved in drafting the VAWA reauthorization legislation and in particular the language regarding tribal jurisdiction over non- Indians for domestic violence offences. “And certainly one of the issues that I knew would come up, which everyone knew would come up, is whether or not there’s a constitutional bar in light of Oliphant and Lara,” Leonhard says. “So I did a fair bit of research and analysis on that. I went through all the ratified treaties I could find, looking at how they dealt with criminal jurisdiction issues, and those nine treaties, the very early treaties, make it very clear that the Founding Fathers allowed tribes to exercise jurisdiction over non-Indians at least when those non-Indians were residing in Indian country.”

The treaties, Leonhard says, can be used to bolster the efforts already under way to pass VAWA in the 113th Congress. “I hope it provides more ammunition to their arguments,” he says. “If all the opponents are left with is, ‘There’s no constitutional basis to do this,’ then they don’t really have an argument.”

One of the treaties Leonhard examined is the Treaty of Fort McIntosh. In early January 1785, the Confederation Congress sent three commissioners to Fort McIntosh in Ohio country to negotiate a treaty with the Delaware, Wyandot, Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. The Indian representatives were young leaders with no authority to negotiate a treaty, and according to one report, the Americans plied the young Indian warriors with alcohol and after weeks of negotiations, 13 Indians signed the Treaty of Fort McIntosh on January 21, 1785.

The treaty was a very good deal for the Americans. The Indians agreed to live under the U.S. government’s “protection” and promised not to form alliances with any “other sovereign whatsoever.” They gave up vast stretches of their land in southern and eastern Ohio, acknowledged that it now belonged to the United States and promised not to settle on any part of it. The U.S. dictated that the Indians would be confined to the western corner of modern day Ohio. The Indians accepted that the U.S. would keep army posts at strategic points and they agreed to hand over to the United States any Indian who robbed or murdered “any citizen of the United States” (Indians weren’t U.S. citizens until 1924).

But there was one provision in the treaty that respected the Indians’ inherent sovereignty: Article 5 affirmed their right to punish U.S. citizens and other non-Indians who tried to settle on Indian land. “If any citizen of the United States, or other person not being an Indian, shall attempt to settle on any of the lands allotted to the Wiandot and Delaware nations in this treaty…such person shall forfeit the protection of the United States, and the Indians may punish him as they please.”

Leonhard says that provision affirms inherent tribal sovereignty, “because it talks in terms of removing federal protections over non-Indians, and if that’s removed what remains is the tribal jurisdiction. It doesn’t talk in terms of granting federal power to tribes to prosecute non-Indians or delegated authority. So I think the authority that ends up in those cases is inherent authority.”

In “Closing a Gap,” Leonhard cites two long-standing principles that apply when interpreting Indian treaties. The first is that Indian treaties, “by their nature, reserved rights that tribal nations already had—they were a grant from Indians to the United States, not a grant of rights to Indians from the United States.” The second is that treaties are to be interpreted liberally in favor of the tribes and if there is any question about the appropriate interpretation “it must be read in a way that does not prejudice tribes.”

Leonhard’s paper also cites the first treaty entered into by the United States—the 1778 treaty with the Delaware Indians—which is even more explicit on the nation-to-nation relationship between the newly formed United States and the ancient Delaware Indian nation. “For the better security of the peace and friendship now entered into by the contracting parties, against all infractions of the same by the citizens of either party…neither party shall proceed to the infliction of punishment on the citizens of the other, otherwise than by securing the offender or offenders by imprisonment…till a fair and impartial trial can be had by judges or juries of both parties, as near as can be to the laws, customs and usages of the contracting parties and natural justice: The mode of such trials to be hereafter fixed by the wise men of the United States in Congress assembled, with the assistance of such deputies of the Delaware nation, as may be appointed to act in concert with them in adjusting this matter to their mutual liking. And it is further agreed between the parties aforesaid, that neither shall entertain or give countenance to the enemies of the other, or protect in their respective states, criminal fugitives, servants or slaves but the same to apprehend, and secure and deliver to the State or States, to which such enemies, criminals, servant or slaves respectively belong.”

This first treaty with an Indian nation shows that the U.S. “viewed tribes not just as having inherent power to punish citizens of the United States for crimes committed against the tribe”—a power that the tribe agreed in the treaty to share concurrently with the U.S. government—“but that the powers exercised by Indian nations were essentially the same as the powers exercised by the United States—they were equals as nations,” Leonhard says.

Six of the nine treaties that recognized the ability of tribes to punish non-Indians on Indian land were ratified between 1785 and 1789 by the Confederation Congress, a legislative body that included of 33 of the men who signed the Constitution. So, if the Founding Fathers acknowledged the inherent sovereignty of tribes to exercise jurisdiction over non-Indians on Indian land in treaties that have been around for more than 200 years, why do some legislators today question the constitutionality of expanded tribal jurisdiction?

“I’m not sure that the representatives in Congress are really aware of [these treaties],” Leonhard says. “I’m not sure it would change their opinion ultimately, but I think it’s a serious hurdle that they have to address if they’re going to claim that there’s a constitutional bar.”

John Dossett, general counsel of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), applauds Leonhard’s work. “I think the treaties are very strong and some of these arguments are very viable,” he says. The NCAI, a member of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, has been a strong advocate for the VAWA, compiling talking points and fact sheets on a VAWA to counter the misinformation about expanded tribal jurisdiction website. Dossett agrees that constitutional federal Indian law is not something members of Congress are likely to know about “so we really have to educate folks, and that has been happening. I think we’re not far away from getting [VAWA] done. There’s a lot of support on both sides of the aisle, and that’s good news.”

Six years have passed since the 2007 publication of Amnesty International’s report: “Maze of Injustice: The failure to protect indigenous women from sexual violence in the U.S.A.”: “Indigenous Peoples in the U.S.A. face deeply entrenched marginalization—the result of a long history of systemic and pervasive abuse and persecution,” the report says. “Sexual violence against indigenous women today is informed and conditioned by this legacy of widespread and egregious human rights abuses. It has been compounded by the federal government’s steady erosion of tribal government authority and its chronic under-resourcing of those law enforcement agencies and service providers [that] should protect indigenous women from sexual violence. It is against this backdrop that American Indian and Alaska Native women continue to experience high levels of sexual violence, a systemic failure to punish those responsible and official indifference to their rights to dignity, security and justice.”

Native women are vulnerable to violent attacks by non-Indians who know they are untouchable by the “maze of injustice” that allows them to victimize women with impunity. Passage of the VAWA expanded tribal jurisdiction would allow tribes to hold these offenders accountable, Leonhard says. The essential question, he says, is whether or not Congress can pass a VAWA that expands inherent tribal authority. It did in Lara and I think conservative Republicans are saying now, well, we’ve got a different Supreme Court, and it’s not at all clear a majority would agree with that outcome, which may be true,” Leonhard says. “But, regardless, you’ve got these early treaties by the Founding Fathers. A conservative approach to interpreting the Constitution—like [Justice Antonin] Scalia’s originalism—is you look at what the original intent of the Founding Fathers was with regard to those provisions in the Constitution, and when you do that and you see they already ratified nine treaties that expanded the inherent powers of tribes to include the authority over non-Indians, it’s just a given that there’s no constitutional bar to passing the VAWA.”
***

Treaties
Brent Leonhard has found numerous treaties between the United States and tribal nations that explicitly recognize the power of tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian citizens of the United States. These treaties refute the claim that there is a “constitutional bar” against restoring tribal jurisdiction over criminal acts of violence against women committed in Indian country. All of the treaties can be found in Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, Compiled and Edited by Charles J. Kappler, here.

Treaty with the Delaware Indians, Sept. 17, 1778. In the first peace treaty signed with the Indian nations, the United States shows the U.S. “viewed tribes not just as having the inherent power to punish citizens of the United States for crimes committed against the tribe, but that the powers exercised by Indian nations were essentially the same as the powers exercised by the United States—they were equals as nations.”

Treaty with the Six Nations, Oct. 22, 1784. This treaty recognizes that the nations exercised at least some form of de facto jurisdiction over non-Indians as an aspect of their inherent sovereign powers and contains no language suggesting that the six nations gave up any inherent sovereign power to exercise jurisdiction of any type over U.S. citizens in the future.

Treaty with the Wyandot, Delaware, Chippewa, and Ottawa nations, January 21, 1785. This treaty explicitly agrees that any non-Indian who tries to settle on Indian land will “forfeit the protection of the United States” and may be punished by the Indians and that any Indians who commit crimes against the U.S. will be turned over to be punished by U.S. laws, implying that in the absence of such agreements, tribal nations could refuse to do so.

Treaty with the Cherokee, Nov. 28, 1785. This treaty is similar to the Wyandot treaty with some changes: The U.S. agreed that any of its citizens attempting to settle on Cherokee lands– including those already settled there who did not leave within six months of the signing of the treaty–would be subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the tribal nation. The Cherokee agreed to deliver to the U.S. Indians or non Indians who committed certain crimes against provided the punishment was the same as it would have been if committed by a U.S. and the U.S. agreed that any punishment of an Indian would be witnessed by the Cherokees if they so desired.

Treaty with the Choctaw, Jan. 3, 1786, Treaty with the Chickasaw, Jan. 10, 1786, Treaty with the Shawnee, Jan. 31, 1786, Treaty with the Wyandot, Jan. 8, 1789, Treaty with the Creeks, Aug. 7, 1790, and Treaty with the Cherokee, July 2, 1791, are all similar to the 1785 Wyandot Treaty.

Treaty with the Wyandots, Delewares, Shawanoes, Ottawas, Chipewas, Putawatimes, Miamis, Eel-river, Weea’s, Kickapoos, Piankashaws, and Kaskaskias, Aug. 3, 1795. This treaty expands the earlier Wyandot Treat to include language reflecting the 1790 Indian Trade and Nonintercourse Act requiring congressional approval for the transfer of Indian land. “If any citizen of the United States, or any other white person or persons, shall presume to settle upon the lands now relinquished by the United States, such citizen or other person shall be out of the protection of the United States; and the Indian tribe, on whose land the settlement shall be made, may drive off the settler, or punish him in such manner as they shall think fit; and because such settlements made without the consent of the United States, will be injurious to them as well as to the Indians, the United States shall be at liberty to break them up, and remove and punish the settlers as they shall think proper, and so effect that protection of the Indian lands herein before stipulated.”

Idle No More Enters a New Phase, Seeks Next Steps

A flash mob in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Photo: David P. Ball

By David P. Ball, Indian Country Today Media Network

Idle No More’s founders and leaders are determined to keep the movement’s momentum going and to maintain pressure on aboriginal leaders and the federal government to enact concrete change.

As Parliament resumed on January 28, activists in at least 30 cities held a second Idle No More day of action, continuing to set themselves apart from official leadership and the six-week-long, liquids-only fast of Attawapiskat First Nation Chief Theresa Spence, which ended on January 24.

“Our nationhood can’t just be words in a constitution,” said lawyer Pamela Palmater, Mi’kmaq, chair of the Centre for Indigenous Governance at Ryerson University in Toronto and runner-up in last year’s Assembly of First Nations (AFN) national chief race. She told Indian Country Today Media Network, “It has to be recognized and implemented and respected—and that’s what this movement is about: shifting everything.”

Idle No More wants to keep aboriginal issues on the radar of mainstream Canadians and in the national dialogue while going beyond the flash mobs and rallies with which the movement has become virtually synonymous.

“We have seen the demands emanating from the grassroots sharpening and becoming even more precise,” Glen Coulthard, assistant professor of First Nations Studies and Political Science at the University of British Columbia (UBC), told ICTMN. “Before, it used to be housing conditions, the material conditions on reserves, and the attack on some of the environmental and land concerns with omnibus Bill C-45. Now we’re focusing on the core issue: setting right the relationship between indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples in Canada.”

Sylvia McAdam, Cree, one of the four female founders of Idle No More, wants to continue broadening its support. “I keep telling as many people [as I can] that it’s not an indigenous movement, because Bill C-45 affects all of us,” the Big River First Nation member said. “I believe that the voice of Idle No More—the voice of grassroots people—will become clearer and more focused.”

Some fear the movement could lose energy following the January 11 meeting that Atleo and other AFN chiefs had with Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Others see the 13-point Declaration of Commitment signed by the chiefs, including Spence, on January 24 as an attempt by aboriginal leadership to co-opt the grassroots movement. There are even whispers about a possible coup inside the AFN by those who felt the Harper meeting was a capitulation of sorts.

“There’s going to be political fallout,” Palmater said. “Where progress will be made is in the reunification of leadership with the grassroots people. The kind of core, fundamental breakthrough that we’ve been looking for is that the chiefs would listen to the people and stand by their people.”
But some are wary. McAdam insisted that Idle No More is independent from leadership, even if some chiefs have shown support. “Once leadership takes over, the movement shifts,” she said.

Some recommended taking a more aggressive and independent stand.

“We need to alter our strategies and tactics to present more of a serious challenge on the ground to force the federal government…to respond to us in a serious way,” wrote Mohawk author Taiaiake Alfred, professor of indigenous governance at the University of Victoria, in a blog post. “We need to focus our activism on the root of the problem facing our people collectively: our collective dispossession and misrepresentation as Indigenous Peoples.”

UBC’s Coulthard, Yellowknives Dene First Nation, believes that actions such as flash mobs and blockades are an effective tool in Native struggles—at least until there is a substantive change in the indigenous-Canadian relationship. At the same time, he wants the movement to discuss economic and political alternatives as concrete solutions to today’s crises.

But Chief Steve Courtoreille, of Mikisew First Nation in Alberta, urges moderation. Courtoreille is one of the leaders taking the Bill C-45 fight into the courts through a treaty rights lawsuit filed with Frog Lake First Nation in January. And while he favors confrontation, he is wary of alienating potential allies.

“It’s time now the country pulls together on this very issue—to make the government of Canada rethink their plan,” he told ICTMN. “I don’t support blockades—I support the Idle No More movement’s peaceful rallies. The more the Canadian people understand what’s going on, I know they’ll come on board.”

Sen. Cantwell Urges Swift Passage of Violence Against Women Act on Senate Floor With Tribal Provisions

By Indian Country Today Media Network Staff

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and co-sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act bill introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on January 22, 2013 spoke on the Senate floor on February 7, during the Senate hearing on VAWA where she urged swift passage of S.47 with strong tribal provisions.

Below are Cantwell’s full remarks on the Senate floor:

“Madam President I thank the leader Senator Leahy for his leadership on trying to get the Violence Against Women Act passed. And for being down here and working out some agreements hopefully with the other side of the aisle about votes either today or in the future.

“And hopefully we will bring this issue to an end and get along with protecting the rights of women throughout the United States of America. So I am very anxious to help and further that debate today.

“I come to the floor now as the Chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and somebody who has spent a lot of time dealing with tribal leadership in the state of Washington and throughout the Pacific Northwest.

“As I know the presiding officer has a very large tribal population within your state too. And I’m sure you’ve had many experiences with them. And like me you want to make sure that all victims of domestic violence are protected in America. And for us in Washington state we receive over 30,000 domestic violence calls a year.

“That’s more than 500 incidents per week. So I can tell you that our domestic violence program services about 1,800 people each day. Each day. And that is why we need to get this legislation reauthorized and move past this debate and make sure that we help protect victims.

“You know a woman named Carissa came to one of our events recently. She had fled a very abusive domestic violence abuse with her three-year-old daughter. And she is alive she said because of the Violence Against Women Act. Because those safeguards and protections were there to protect her.

“So Madam President I come to the floor today and I’m a little frustrated that this debate has bogged down over a few issues. Particularly this issue as it relates to Native Americans and the rights of Native Americans.

“We had the Department of Justice come to the United States Congress with a very good solution, because their point was, we have an epidemic of violence against women in tribal country. And we don’t have a ready solution as it relates to the necessary law enforcement there to protect them.

“And I guess I don’t mean to be elementary but going back to our country’s history and our relationship with tribal governments it is a federal relationship. And to secure that federal relationship we have said basically these are rights for the federal government and not the states.

“In many ways we’ve eliminated what states can do as it relates to tribal land. So the challenge we have is that on these tribal reservations we need to make sure that the law is enforced, a federal law. And that there are individuals to carry out that federal law.

“So I guess my colleagues on the other side of the aisle by voting for the underlying amendment, I don’t know if they have an appropriation authorization there that says, “OK, here’s how we’re going to deal with it. We’re going to give you a federal prosecutor and a federal agent on every tribal reservation or in every jurisdiction.”

“In my state I don’t know how many that would be. Because you know, we have huge lands and so if you thought that was going to be effective, you’d have to have a prosecutor and a federal agent in probably 20 different parts of my state.

“And if you multiply that even just in the West or your state, we’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars that the federal government would have to bailout to properly police and enforce federal law as it relates to crimes against these women.

“Now why isn’t anybody recommending that? Because I think the Department of Justice has adequately seen that the best way to do this is to build a partnership. And to build a partnership with those tribal jurisdictions to get that done.

“You know I’m always amazed in looking back at this over history, what have previous administrations – Republican administrations – said about this tribal relationship?

“Well, the Supreme Court has made decisions. And even George H. Bush’s solicitor general Kenneth Starr stated in a filing with the Supreme Court, “It remains true today that the state has no jurisdiction on reservations involving Indians.”

“And then George W. Bush, his solicitor general said, “The policy of leaving Indians free from state jurisdiction and control is deeply rooted in our nation’s history.”

“So here are Republican administrations that have basically said the way to deal with this is as a federal relationship. And I’m saying to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, unless you are willing to put a federal prosecutor, and to put a federal agent right there on all tribal reservations, who do you think is going to prosecute these crimes?

“Who? Who is going to prosecute them? And so that is why the Department of Justice came to us and said we have an idea of how we might do it. Let’s try to get a partnership with tribal jurisdictions to make sure that justice is being brought on tribal land. But do so by protecting the civil liberties of American citizens as we go through this process.

“And that is the legislation that is before us. That passed out of the Judiciary Committee and is now on the Senate floor. That is now trying to be stripped from those very rights that Native American women would have. And so the way this would work is obviously tribal jurisdictions would prosecute these individuals.

“And if you don’t think that this isn’t a problem, it is amazing to me to think that this concept that maybe one of our other colleagues might be proposing. That somehow you would say…well it’s a lesser crime. That if you assaulted an Indian woman on tribal reservations it would be a misdemeanor.

“That somehow aggressive abuse, a violent attack against a woman would somehow be a misdemeanor. I am not going to treat Native American women as second-class citizens in the United States of America. Now I get that that might have been the cultural norm of the 1700s and the 1800s but it has no place in our history in 2013.

“This is about legislation that will protect tribal women on Indian reservations and to make sure that these cases of abuse, whether they are done by a Native American or non-Native American are protected. In one case, a woman Diane Millich, her ex-husband was not arrested for more than 100 times he had beaten her or attacked her.

“And then he finally showed up at her workplace with a gun to kill her. And only because an individual from her workplace pushed her out of the way is she still alive. But her husband is being treated as a first-time offender. Because all those times that he beat her or domestically assaulted her he was never prosecuted. Because it took place on a reservation.

“This epidemic is so great that now these people involved in sex-trafficking, in drug-trafficking are targeting reservations and these women because they know they won’t get prosecuted. They know this. So we are allowing an intolerable situation to grow in great extremes simply because we aren’t working together with the tools we have.

“I get that many of my colleagues may not understand the history of tribal law. And the history of our country in securing the relationship with tribes and the treaties that we signed. Again, as I said before, this is a relationship that we have preserved for the federal government. And the federal government is saying this is how we can best solve these crimes by getting the help and support of tribal jurisdictions.

“Now I want to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because I’ve heard some of them say that somehow this violates the civil liberties of non-Native Americans if these crimes happen in Indian country. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

“First of all, all tribal courts also adhere to the Indian Civil Rights Act which is basically our 14^th Amendment. So that security of the 14^th Amendment is right there in the law and will protect any non-Native American that is charged with this crime on a reservation.

“Secondly, this law has specifically broad language making sure that the defendant would be protected with all rights required by the United States in order for this jurisdiction to have oversight. So it is almost like a double protection saying twice that Habeas Corpus rights of individuals are going to be protected under this statute.

“So the notion that this is somehow abrogating individual rights just because the crime takes place on a tribal reservation is incorrect. So I ask my colleagues, do you want to continue to have this unbelievable growth and petri dish of crime evolving? Because criminals know, when you have a porous border that is where they are going to go.

“Or whether we want to partner with a recommendation that has been determined by the Department of Justice, who has the authority to carry out this federal law on tribal reservations. And are asking for this partnership but with due protection. To give them that due protection so we can root out this evil in our communities.

“I would say to my colleagues it’s time to pass this legislation. And to protect these rights for all individuals. We cannot vote for an amendment on the other side of the aisle that basically strips the rights of Native American women and treats them like second-class citizens. Nor can we just go silent on what is an epidemic problem in our country.

“What we have to do is stand up and realize that the relationship between the federal government and Indian country is a very mature relationship today. With a lot of federal case law behind it. A lot of Republican administrations recognizing that it’s a federal relationship. And that we can accomplish asking Indian country to help us solve this problem and prosecute these individuals under the rights that we have as constitutional citizens of the United States. I am confident that we can get to an answer here and resolve this issue.

“And I can say to my colleagues. We need to do so with urgency. We can’t allow another 1,800 calls to go in and be unanswered and not supported because we haven’t authorized this legislation. Let’s get our job done and let’s protect all women throughout the United States of America. Madam President I yield the floor.”

Paine Field terminal will go ahead, exec says on Facebook

County exec announces plans for passenger facility on Facebook page

By Rikki King, Herald Writer

EVERETT — Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon, who has opposed commercial flights at Paine Field, on Friday announced to his friends and followers on social media that he is pushing ahead with plans to build a passenger terminal.

Reardon shared the news on his Facebook page, and through his personal Twitter feed.

Federal law requires the county, which runs the airport, to build the terminal.

“However the county’s elected officials personally feel about the decision of the FAA to allow passenger service at Paine Field, it is essential that Snohomish County ensure all requirements under federal law are met,” he wrote.

The social media announcements came a day after Alaska Airlines proposed, over the next several years, to provide service from Everett to destinations including Honolulu, Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Allegiant Air also has asked to operate flights to Las Vegas and, eventually, other cities.

The Federal Aviation Administration recently approved passenger flights at the airport after a three-year environmental study.

The topic has been debated in the county for years. In general, the county’s business community, from whom Reardon draws strong support, approves of regular commercial service to and from Paine Field. The cities of Mukilteo and Edmonds, and community groups located near the airport, recently filed a federal lawsuit challenging the decision to allow regular commercial flights.

Gunshot deaths in Snohomish County

Reported by Rikki King and Scott North / Herald Writers

When 20 children died in the Sandy Hook shooting in Connecticut in December, many people rushed to the Internet to argue about guns. As so often happens, emotions took over. It’s almost an American tradition, debating gun laws. People on both sides toss out stats.

Let’s fact-check one of the big ones: Is it true that more people die from traffic accidents than gun violence?

Not here. As the tables below and the accompanying graphics show, more people in Snohomish County die from gunshot wounds, according to data kept by the county Medical Examiner’s Office.

Four out of five gun deaths reported here since 2007 were ruled suicides and, for a number of reasons, rarely resulted in news reports.

Conversely, nearly every fatal car accident that occurs around here gets some mention. Roughly 30 to 40 people die in the county each year in traffic accidents. On average, about 45 people die from gunshot wounds.

Guns are a significant factor in homicides here. Snohomish County reported 18 homicides in 2012. Of those, 10 involved firearms.

About 4,500 people die in the county every year, the great majority of them from natural causes or accidents. For technical reasons, almost all firearm deaths are classified as homicides or suicides, including fatal accidental shootings.

The most common causes of accidental deaths are falls and fractures and drug and alcohol overdoses, followed by car accidents.

About 100 people fatally overdose here every year. Some of those deaths are suicides, but many are accidents. It’s not always possible to say for sure.

That’s 100 deaths just from drugs and alcohol — more than double those from bullets.

More online

Firearm deaths vs. traffic fatalities

Year	Firearm deaths	Traffic accident deaths
2007	38	31
2008	33	29
2009	62	42
2010	50	28
2011	44	38
Total	227	168

Firearm deaths

Year	Firearm suicide	Firearm homicide	All firearm deaths
2007	25	13	38
2008	24	9	33
2009	51	11	62
2010	46	4	50
2011	39	5	44
Total	185	42	227

Accidental deaths

Year	Accidental fall	Accidental overdose or poisoning	Traffic accident	All accidental
2007	96	98	31	225
2008	130	110	29	269
2009	123	110	42	275
2010	129	98	28	255
2011	137	149	38	324
Total	615	565	168	1,348

Non-accidental violent deaths

Year	Suicide	Homicide	Total non-accidental violent deaths
2007	72	19	91
2008	61	13	74
2009	94	22	116
2010	103	13	116
2011	95	11	106
Total	425	78	503

VAWA Bill set for vote on Monday

VAWA BILL SET FOR VOTE ON MONDAY

– Grassley Substitute Bill defeated –

– Vote No on Coburn Amendment! –

We still have work to do!

S. 47, the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization, is a strong, bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Michael Crapo (R-ID). S. 47 is very similar to the bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Leahy and Crapo last Congress and would improve VAWA programs and strengthen protections for all victims of violence.

The bill includes historically important tribal provisions that would enable tribes to address domestic violence in Indian country. Votes on the bill were started yesterday, and are expected to be completed early next week, probably Monday early evening and Tuesday.

In a letter sent to Senators Leahy and Crapo on Thursday morning, the NCAI Taskforce on Violence Against Women expressed strong opposition to any harmful amendments offered to the Senate legislation to reauthorize VAWA. In the letter to the Senate co-authors of the legislation, NCAI expressed unified opposition to amendments to VAWA that would strip tribal jurisdiction provisions or alter the current language in S. 47 in a harmful manner. The letter sent by NCAI Task Force co-chairs Juana Majel Dixon (Pauma Band of Mission Indians, CA) and Terri Henry (Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, NC) can be downloaded here and you can read NCAI’s full press release here.

As a result of a lot of hard work by VAWA advocates, a harmful substitute bill proposed by Senator Grassley, that would have removed the tribal provisions and a lot of other good provisions, was defeated on Thursday 65-34.

It was an important moment, but there is more work to do to defeat a Coburn amendment that would strip the tribal provisions.

In anticipation of the impending votes, we urge you to take action this weekend and first thing MONDAY by contacting your Senators to vote against any further harmful amendments and vote for the overall bill!

ACTION ITEM: EMAIL YOUR SENATOR(s)

THIS WEEKEND AND CALL ON MONDAY!!!

EMAIL – Find you Senator(s) on this list and contact them by email. Send them a simple message.

“Dear Senator, Monday is an important day, you’ll have a chance to protect all women, including Native women. It’s time to be a hero and pass a comprehensive VAWA – S.47 – including the tribal provisions and I urge you to vote NO on the Coburn Amendment. I urge you to support the Murkowski and Leahy Amendments.”

CALL – On Monday, call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask the operator to connect you to your Senators. When you’re connected to their offices, ask to speak to the staff person who handles VAWA. Tell them the same thing you wrote in your email over the weekend.

” Today is an important day, the Senator has the chance to protect all women, including Native women. It’s time to be a hero and pass a comprehensive VAWA – S.47 – including the tribal provisions and I urge the Senator to vote NO on the Coburn Amendment. I urge you to support the Murkowski and Leahy Amendments.”

Oppose Coburn Amendment

Senator Coburn of Oklahoma has filed an amendment that would strip the tribal provisions from the legislation, and this amendment is scheduled for a vote. This is a critical vote that will show the strength of support for tribes.

As you know, S. 47 contains key provisions that would restore tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians for certain acts of domestic violence and dating violence, as well as for violations of protection orders, in Indian country.

We urge all tribes and advocates to ask their Senators to vote NO on the Coburn Amendment. This vote will be exclusively about the tribal provisions and it is critical to get as many no votes as possible.

Talking points are available in the VAWA Toolkit.
Senator Coburn’s amendment can be found here.

Support Murkowski Amendment: Senator Murkowski has offered an amendment that clarifies Section 905 regarding protective orders. The language of Section 905 on Alaska was vague, and could be interpreted to generally exclude Alaska tribes from 18 USC 2265. This is a clarification and it helps Alaska tribes. Although it doesn’t go as far as Alaska tribes would like, it is significantly better than the introduced version. This amendment is scheduled to receive a vote, and can be found here.

Support Leahy Human Trafficking Amendment: Senator Leahy is offering a trafficking-related amendment, which is effectively the same as S.1301, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), a positive bill that had broad bipartisan support last year (including from 15 Republicans). For a factsheet on S.1301, click here. For the bill text click here . The National Task Force to End Domestic Violence supports this amendment.

For more information, fact sheets, press coverage, support letters and updates: www.ncai.org and www.4vawa.org.

NCAI Contact Information:Please contact John Dossett,General Counsel jdossett@ncai.org or Derrick Beetso, Staff Attorney, dbeetso@ncai.org if you have any questions.

Documentary crew to visit Tulalip

By Rikki King, http://www.heraldnet.com

A French film crew plans to visit the Tulalip Indian Reservation next week to work on a short documentary and conduct interviews regarding the reauthorization efforts there for the Violence Against Women Act.

Tulalip officials last year, including vice chairwoman Deborah Parker, were among those fighting to expand the act to include more tribal provisions. It ultimately didn’t happen. They plan to try again.

Herald columnist Julie Muhlstein wrote a story about Parker’s work last May.

The documentary crew with “Canal+” is expected in town Wednesday, tribal spokeswoman Francesca Hillery said. A private ceremony also is planned on the reservation next week as part of a national day of recognition for efforts to reauthorize the anti-violence law.

“What we will be doing essentially is sending up a prayer for all native women,” Hillery said.

For more information about the law and what’s happening nationally, read this Associated Press story from Tuesday.

Where Alaska wants to fly from Paine Field

By Bill Sheets, Herald Writer

EVERETT — Alaska Airlines wants to fly passengers to Honolulu, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and other West Coast destinations from Everett’s Paine Field.

Flying to destinations beyond the Northwest is a change from Alaska Airlines’ original request to run Horizon Air commuter flights per week at the airport, primarily to Portland and Spokane.

Also different: The airline will use 737-800 jets. The airline initially proposed using only smaller Bombardier Q400 turboprops.

Alaska proposes to run 98 flights per week in and out of the Snohomish County-owned airport within five years, according to a proposal it submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration on Thursday. Included are 42 flights between Everett and Portland per week on the Bombardiers.

Allegiant Air also has asked to operate flights to Las Vegas from Paine Field and possibly other West Coast destinations. Allegiant is based in Las Vegas, Alaska in Seattle. Both airlines first approached Snohomish County in 2008.

The Federal Aviation Administration recently gave its go-ahead to flights at the airport following a drawn-out, three-year environmental study.

Mukilteo, Edmonds and community groups last week challenged that decision by filing suit in federal court.

Snohomish County still must build a terminal at Paine Field to accommodate passengers. That process would take more than a year, according to county officials.

The airport was built in the late 1930s. It primarily has served military operations, Boeing service and test flights, aircraft maintenance businesses and small, private planes. Except a short period around 1950 and briefly in the late 1980s, Paine Field has not had commercial airline service.

It’s unclear if or how Alaska’s latest proposal would affect the federal environmental ruling. The earlier plans would have brought 23 flights per day, combined between the two airlines, to Paine Field within five years.

The current plan would bring about 17 daily flights to the airport in the same time frame — fewer overall, but some with larger, louder jets.

“We’ve asked the FAA to determine if any further environmental review is needed because of our proposed jet service,” Alaska spokesman Paul McElroy said.

Allen Kenitzer, a spokesman at the FAA’s regional office in Renton, provided only a brief comment.

“We have in fact received a letter from Alaska Airlines and are reviewing it,” he said in an email.

Last year, Alaska Airlines officials said they were backing out of flying from Paine Field, citing the economy and improvements at Sea-Tac Airport and Bellingham International Airport.

Officials also said, however, that if another airline were to serve the airport, then Alaska would again be interested.

Allegiant officials have remained interested throughout.

Recent projects at Sea-Tac include the completion of a third runway; a remodeled terminal building, and Sound Transit’s extension of Link light rail to the airport.

Bellingham, about an hour’s drive north of Everett, is undergoing a $17 million expansion of its terminal.

“They have made Sea-Tac more convenient for travelers and they’ve better equipped Bellingham to handle more traffic,” McElroy said. “Serving a third airport between those cities undercuts our ability to provide travelers with the lowest fares possible.”

At the same time, he said, “the airline industry is extremely competitive, and we take all threats very seriously.”

In the first year Alaska would run 14 weekly round trips to Las Vegas, Honolulu and Maui, Hawaii on the 737-800s and 21 weekly round-trips to Portland. Not all destinations would be served daily.

By the fifth year of operations, Alaska would fly 49 weekly round-trip flights, or 98 one-way flights in and out of Paine Field. This would include 28 round-trips to Las Vegas, Honolulu, Maui, Los Angeles, Phoenix and San Diego with 737-800s, plus the 21 weekly round-trips to Portland using Q400s.

Opponents of commercial service say opening Paine Field to commercial service could increase noise and traffic in surrounding communities. Supporters say flights could help the economy by bringing jobs to the county and convenience for travelers.

REI chief: outsider pick for Interior secretary

President Obama Wednesday named REI CEO Sally Jewell as his nominee to replace Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. Selecting a businesswoman instead of a politician is unusual.

By Craig Welch, Jim Brunner and Kyung M. Song, Seattle Times Reporters

When President Obama picked REI’s chief executive to oversee the nation’s public lands, he chose a Seattle businesswoman steeped in Western land issues — a kayaker, skier and climber as familiar with a hard hat as she is with an ice ax.

Sally Jewell, 56, the Kent-based outdoor-retail co-op’s president and CEO, has worked as an oil-field engineer and a commercial banker. She spent years toiling behind the scenes on recreation, national-park and wildland conflicts, under Democratic and Republican presidents.

But Obama’s choice for secretary of the Interior — a post responsible for everything from wildlife refuges and coal leasing to national parks and offhore oil drilling — comes with markedly little experience in the often-combative ways of D.C. politics.

The post of Interior secretary is typically filled by an experienced politician from the West; Jewell has never held elected public office.

Still, her eclectic résumé and reputation as a low-key problem solver were enough to earn her quick praise from politicians and interest groups usually at odds with one another.

Environmental groups, including American Rivers and Trout Unlimited, applauded her conservation ethic, her efforts to find more funding for national parks and her work showing that environmental stewardship is also good for business. Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said Jewell has “a demonstrated commitment to preserving the higher purposes public lands hold for all Americans — recreation, adventure and enjoyment.”

At the same time, the Western Energy Alliance, which represents the oil and natural-gas industry in the West, also welcomed Jewell’s nomination.

“Her experience as a petroleum engineer and business leader will bring a unique perspective to an office that is key to our nation’s energy portfolio,” said Tim Wigley, the group’s president.

None of the applause surprisedRepublican Dirk Kempthorne, a former Idaho governor and U.S. senator who served as Interior secretary under President George W. Bush.

“Sally Jewell will be a terrific secretary of the Interior,” Kempthorne said. “She combines a keen intellect with equally keen hearing. She listens well, takes in the information and asks very, very pertinent questions.”

In making the announcement, Obama mentioned Jewell’s deep knowledge — and her relatively thin political résumé — as assets.

“Even as Sally has spent the majority of her career outside of Washington (D.C.) — where, I might add, the majority of our interior is located,” he said, “she is an expert on the energy and climate issues that are going to shape our future. … She knows the link between conservation and good jobs.”

In her remarks, Jewell said: “I have a great job at REI today, but there’s no role that compares to the call to serve my country as secretary of the Interior.”

Complex issues await

Jewell is the first woman among Obama’s second-term Cabinet nominees.

The White House had faced criticism that the new Cabinet lacked diversity after Obama tapped a string of white men for top posts. Obama then promised more diverse nominees.

Former Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire also had been named as a possible contender for the job.

In an interview with The Seattle Times in 2000, Jewell said she grew up wanting to be “a scientist, an oceanographer, a forest ranger — mostly outdoor-related things.”

If confirmed, she faces no shortage of complex issues.

The Interior Department is responsible for more than 500 million acres of public lands, from Yellowstone National Park to the Lincoln Memorial. It administers the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and is a major player in fighting wildfires.

It oversees the scrublands of the Bureau of Land Management and is responsible for leasing rights to oil, coal, gas and heavy metals even when found under land managed by other departments. Interior employs more than 70,000 people.

Jewell has served on the board of the National Parks Conservation Association, which for a decade has complained that budgets for the nation’s park system have been pared to the bone.

The next Interior secretary also will play a key role in deciding whether to protect sage grouse under the ESA, a move that would heavily impact oil and gas development in several Rocky Mountain states.

Interior also oversees the dwindling Colorado River, the lifeblood of several states and a source of water for Southern California, and nascent efforts to drill offshore in the Alaskan Arctic.

Jewell also would be thrust into the center of the battle over exporting coal from the Northwest to Asia. Interior oversees the leasing program that, under Obama, has opened more land in Wyoming and Montana to coal extraction just as domestic coal use has declined. That has prompted an industry push for more exports.

Earlier Obama call

Jewell’s pick was praised by U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who said in a statement she had worked closely with Jewell on public-land policy and conservation initiatives in Washington state, including the effort to expand the Alpine Lakes Wilderness and create the Wild Sky Wilderness.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, ranking Republican on the Senate panel overseeing the Interior Department, offered a noncommittal statement Wednesday, saying she wanted to hear more about Jewell’s qualifications and “how she plans to restore balance to the Interior Department.”

A more hostile response came from Republican U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, chairman of the House subcommittee on public lands, who said he had reservations about REI’s links to “special-interest groups” with “radical political agendas.”

Still, Jewell’s confirmation would put a prominent representative from the business community in the president’s Cabinet.

Jewell was born in England, but moved to the Seattle area before age 4 and is a U.S. citizen.

After graduating from the University of Washington with a mechanical-engineering degree, Jewell married and took a job with Mobil Oil, working in the oil fields of Oklahoma.

She spent three years in the industry before moving back to Seattle to work for Rainier Bank in 1981.

“Oil and gas isn’t found in the most pleasant places in the world and, being a woman, there were things I had to put up with that would be considered illegal now, and it just became tiresome. I also wanted to raise my children around grandparents,” she told Seattle Business magazine last year.

In 1996, she became an REI board member. She was named CEO at REI in 2005.

She has been a donor to Obama’s campaigns, and enjoys a bit of a personal relationship with the president. In 2009, she was sailing with her husband off Port Townsend when her daughter called her cellphone to say the president had invited her to the White House.

The president had asked Jewell and other business leaders from around the country to discuss health-care costs.

During the visit, Obama praised REI for providing health insurance for part-time employees, as well as full-time workers.

While Jewell is more closely identified with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, she made a high-profile appearance with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in 2008 when he was running for president.

Heated hearing airs distrust over SPD drones

A public hearing Wednesday on the Seattle Police Department’s plans to deploy drones drew sharp criticism from numerous speakers.

By Christine Clarridge, Seattle Times

There was no shortage of strong opinions — or strong words — when a Seattle City Council committee took up the issue of unmanned police drones during an often heated hearing Wednesday.

“You’re more dangerous than Nazi,” Alex Zimmerman, an activist with Stand Up America, told the members of the council’s Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee. “You’re more dangerous than Communist; more dangerous than Gestapo; more dangerous than KGB.”

Another speaker called committee members “idiots” for even considering an ordinance that would govern the Seattle Police Department’s use of drones, also known as Unmanned Aerial Systems.

“Not only ‘no drones,’ but no more council. You guys are crooks. You guys are idiots. You’re telling us they got them already, we have to use them … You guys are becoming a police state … The people do not want this,” said Samuel Bellomio, also with Stand Up America.

The meeting, called to discuss a proposed ordinance that would set restrictions on how and when the police department can use the tiny aircraft, ended with committee Chairman Bruce Harrell saying the conversation had been helpful and would likely lead to the measure being refined.

The proposal is to go back before the committee for a possible vote Feb. 20, then on to the full council Feb. 25.

Jennifer Shaw, the deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, said the ACLU would prefer that Seattle police did not have drones. However, since the department had purchased two with money from a federal Homeland Security grant, she said, it’s important for the city to establish “strong restrictions.”

She recommended that the ordinance be refined to include a more “robust audit provision” and language stating the drones are part of a pilot program.

“We’d like to be able to see if it’s effective and then have the council determine if it should still be going on,” Shaw said.

The proposed restrictions were written after the police department received approval last year from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to operate drones, sparking an uproar among residents, privacy advocates and civil-rights activists.

The FAA approval was granted after President Obama signed a law that compelled the agency to plan for safe integration of civilian drones into American airspace by 2015.

The restrictions would ban the use of drones for general surveillance or for flights over open-air assemblies.

It also would require a warrant be obtained in all but “exigent” or emergency circumstances, such as situations involving hostages, search-and-rescue operations, the pursuit of armed felons, bomb threats and the detection of “hot spots” in fires, or for the collection of traffic data.

The proposed restrictions would ban the use of drones for the collection of information on anyone not specifically named in a warrant, but specify that information collected inadvertently while an unmanned system was being operated in good faith would not violate the ordinance.

That last clause was troubling to members of the audience, including Chris Stearns of the Human Rights Commission, who said the city should make it illegal to use data inadvertently collected by drones in criminal prosecutions.

Committee member Nick Licata said the term “exigent” was too broad and that he would like the ordinance to specify that the drones can only be used for hostage situations and bomb threats.

He also suggested the ordinance specify that the use of drones in emergency circumstances would require the written authorization of an assistant police chief or captain, instead of a lieutenant as proposed.

The ordinance also states that any data collected by drones would be deleted after 30 days unless there was a “reasonable belief that the data is evidence of criminal activity or civil liability.”

The measure would also set up provisions for audits and an annual review.

The issue has ignited strong feelings among opponents. During a public meeting in October, protesters shouted down police speakers during a presentation on the aircraft.