Lummi tribal fishermen harvest Fraser River sockeye during 2010′s record-breaking run.
Source: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
Tribally caught fish sold at the Lummi Nation’s Schelangen Seafood Market is both locally sourced and sustainable, two of the most sought-after qualities for chefs, according to the National Restaurant Association.
Schelangen, in the Lummi language, means “way of life.”
“Harvesting has always been the cornerstone of our culture,” said Elden Hillaire, chairman of the Lummi Fisheries Commission. “All of our harvest targets healthy stocks while protecting weak wild runs. Fishing sustainably and being able to supply locally caught seafood is important to us.”
Locally sourced meat and seafood is the top trend in the National Restaurant Association’s What’s Hot 2013 survey. Ninth on the list is sustainable seafood. The What’s Hot list is compiled from a survey of professional chefs about the food, cuisines and culinary themes that will be popular on restaurant menus this year.
Tribes have been forced in recent years to limit fisheries because of widespread damage to salmon habitat. “Fortunately, because of careful management, we can still harvest without impacting weak wild runs,” Hillaire said. “But in the long term, sustainable harvest and the restoration of salmon habitat are our goal.”
The Lummi Gateway Center, off Interstate 5 north of Bellingham, is intended to promote community prosperity through tribal enterprise. The nearly 10,000-square-foot shopping center also includes a cafe serving lunch daily and a gift shop featuring Lummi artwork.
In addition, the Lummi Gateway Center has space for seven small businesses to start up. These “incubator” spaces will provide an opportunity for tribal members to develop a new business in a prime storefront area. The building itself has been designed to use less energy on a daily basis than a traditionally constructed building, and earned a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Silver Certification.
Long the cause of conflict and distrust, Black Mesa coal is becoming the key to a new approach to building a sustainable future for the Native peoples of the region and the many non-Native peoples who have lights and water because of that coal.
In early December, three generations of Navajos and Hopis met with representatives of grassroots and national human rights and environmental groups to discuss the future of Navajo Generating Station (NGS) on Navajo land near Page, Arizona. Former Navajo Nation president Milton Bluehouse says, “This was a strategy meeting about how to phase out coal for energy over a period of time and find a way to use other resources such as solar, wind or biomass to produce electricity.”
The 2,250-megawatt coal-fueled power plant was built in the early 1970s to provide power for the Central Arizona Project (CAP) and electricity for the growing cities of the Southwest. Marshall Johnson, Navajo, who describes himself as a watchman for his people, explains that most of the power generated at NGS and owned by the federal government “is used to push water uphill from Lake Havasu to Phoenix and Tucson. Eighty percent of the people in Arizona depend on CAP for their water.”
The fuel for the power plant comes from Kayenta Mine on Black Mesa. That coal is owned by the Navajo and Hopi; the strip mine is owned and operated by Peabody Energy, which pays royalties to the tribes. According to a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the power plant and the mine together provide copy50 million to the tribes, including coal royalties, bonuses, groundwater, leases and air permits. NGS employs 450 American Indians and the mine 400.
The future of NGS is up for grabs for several reasons, says Johnson: “Coal is too expensive and water is too expensive to use for generating power.” First, plant owners will in the next few years have to install pollution controls for emissions of nitrous oxides, mercury and other toxics under new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules. Estimated cost: as much as copy.1 billion. If Congress or the EPA imposes limits on carbon dioxide emissions, NGS’s position in relation to the Clean Air Act would be even more tenuous.
Second, the water service contract between Salt River Project and the Bureau of Reclamation that supplies water to the power plant expires in 2014.
Third, the power plant is on Navajo land, and the 50-year site lease for the plant, as well as the rights-of-way for transmission lines, railroads and haul roads, expires in December 2019.
Finally, the power plant uses 34,100 acre-feet a year of water from the Upper Basin of the Colorado River. Arizona’s share of that water under the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact is 50,000 acre-feet a year. The Navajo Tribe has claimed all of Arizona’s share under the Winters Doctrine. The Hopi also have a claim under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. In the original water contract to supply NGS drawn up in the late ’60s, the Navajo Nation waived all rights to Upper Colorado River water in exchange for job preference at the mine and power plant, the exclusive right to sell coal to supply the mine, an allocation of power from the plant to the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, copy25,000 over five years for Navaho Community College (now Diné College) and some CAP water. The resolution passed by the Navajo Nation Tribal Council says the tribe promises to limit its claim to 50,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water per year “for the term of the lifetime of the proposed power plant, or for 50 years, whichever shall occur first.” That 50 years is up in 2016, just one year after the life-of-mine permit expires in 2015.
Given this constellation of environmental requirements and expiring leases and contracts, Joe Browder, who worked on environmental issues in the Carter administration and is now an international consultant on energy development, says, “It is inevitable that NGS will go through some kind of transition. Since the transition will occur anyway, and funds will be invested to make that happen.… It’s not some radical dream for the tribes to think they could get a better deal.”
Clark says the Flagstaff meeting looked at two main questions: “How do we talk about what this transition should be? And how do we present our ideas to tribal and federal leadership in such a way that our ideas will be part of their discussions? We hope to elevate this issue to a top priority in President Obama’s second term.”
The options for converting NGS into a cleaner generator are many. The Navajo Reservation has excellent solar potential, according to the NREL report, and for some, solar is the preferable—or indeed the only—answer. In addition to conventional solar farms, Clark, citing a draft working paper on NGS prepared by the Grand Canyon Trust, suggests the possibility of covering the CAP canals with photovoltaic solar panels.
Natural gas could be another option as a stand-alone or it could be combined with solar, says Browder. “Tribes could offer a combination of solar and natural gas generation, which would be of real value to the utilities and their customers,” he says.
Other possibilities include the sale of the water used at NGS to cities such as Las Vegas, which, according to Clark, is paying $2,000 to $3,000 an acre-foot. The water used at NGS—which the tribes have or say they can claim—would be worth at least $68.2 million. Another option would be to use California’s carbon market. In the global carbon market, says Clark, there are examples of indigenous people earning revenues by not cutting down their forests. Not turning organic carbon, in the form of Black Mesa coal, into atmospheric carbon could work the same way. Not running NGS could also produce revenues. At the low end, the global carbon market is paying copy0 per ton of emissions. At that figure, the carbon dioxide emitted by NGS would be worth approximately $200 million a year.
Regardless of which option (or options) is pursued, the effort will have to be led by the Department of the Interior (DOI). Clark says the Trust’s key point is that there needs to be a commitment from DOI, the Department of Energy and the EPA to come up with a sensible solution to a unique set of problems and to look at a transition plan involving the development of economic alternatives for Native peoples, providing low-cost electricity for CAP and reducing the health impacts of the mine and power plant on the Navajo and Hopi people. Several of the steps needed to keep NGS going or to create alternative energy sources will require an environmental impact statement. There is interest in the environmental and business communities in looking at the life-cycle costs of projects, which could mean, for the first time, quantifying the long- and short-term health and social impacts of coal-based generation in general and NGS in particular.
Bluehouse suggests a principle under which such a plan could evolve. If an orderly transition is going to occur, “we have to cooperate with people in Phoenix, Tucson and Southern California who use the electricity produced at NGS in a civil, respectful negotiation. We should plan this transition with compassion and humanity among all the people involved. We all have to be at the same level in terms of non-Indians and Indians.”
Despite years of struggle, which Janene Yazzie, Navajo, and others say was fostered by the federal government in order to obtain cheap coal and water from the Navajo and Hopi people, Bluehouse says he saw at the meeting “no hard feelings between Navajo and Hopi,” but rather a group of well-informed young, middle-aged and elderly people who had gathered to work collaboratively. He added, “We will have to pull together as brothers and sisters to handle this.”
MARYSVILLE — Nine citizens are in the running to fill the vacancy on the City Council to succeed Council member Carmen Rasmussen.
The application process ended on Feb. 1. Candidates will each be granted time to give brief statements during the Feb. 11 City Council meeting at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers, on the second floor of City Hall, located at 1049 State Ave. The public is invited to meet the candidates at a reception from 5:45-6:45 p.m. prior to the start of the Council meeting.
The Council does not expect to name a successor until the Feb. 25 meeting, which will give them the opportunity to ask further questions of the candidates. All meetings are open to the public.
The candidate selected by a vote of the seated six Council members will need to file for office in the next general municipal elections in November of 2013 to retain the seat, then would fulfill the remainder of the four-year term of the position, which ends on Dec. 31, 2015.
Here is a snapshot of the nominees:
• Robert Weiss, a hydraulics system and control engineer at Boeing with more than 20 years experience who currently serves on the Marysville Salary Commission, and participated in the Marysville Police Citizens Academy.
• Marvetta Toler, a licensed realtor with Prudential Northwest Realty whose civic service includes serving on the Planning Commission, chairing the Diversity Advisory Committee, and various Marysville School District committees over the years.
• Kamille Norton, an active community volunteer who serves on the city’s Civil Service Commission and Salary Commission, and is director and founder of Marysville Select Girls Basketball.
• Scott Allen, a Boeing employee with a hospital consulting services background who currently serves on the Marysville Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and as secretary for the Kiwanis Club.
• Gregory D. Cook, a retired Navy petty officer and work center supervisor on the USS David R. Ray in Everett, as well as a former Boeing employee and neighborhood association past president.
• Cheryl Deckard, a community member who has dedicated more than 25 years to community involvement. She has served with the Washington Festival Association and the Pride of Marysville Award Program.
• James White, a Boeing employee and former corrections officer who was a gubernatorial candidate in the 2008 and 2012 elections.
• Roger Hoen, a city Planning Commissioner who has served on the Washington State Liquor Control Board and the Washington State Reduce Underage Drinking Coalition, and ran for a City Council position in 2011.
• Iris Lilly, a training specialist who trains others on how to assist disabled individuals. She is a firm believer in community involvement and seeks to be a positive role model for her son.
Stanwood Police Chief Rick Hawkins checks in with older students at Cedarhome Elementary School during recess. Hawkins visits schools in the area to help encourage at-risk youth. Photo: Annie Mulligan / For The Herald
STANWOOD — At 9 a.m. sharp, the blinds rolled up at the Stanwood Police Department.
The remodeled bank building downtown announces its tenant in two ways: old-school lettering on the windows and a wooden welcome sign outside, shaped like a goose.
Rick Hawkins has been police chief here for about a year. He’s been working to build community partnerships and revamp Business Watch and Neighborhood Watch programs.
“There’s not a lot of crime here,” Hawkins said. “It’s a good place to live, work, play and shop.”
As Hawkins drove around the city one morning last month, he saw community policing in progress — and places where more work could be done.
On one block, the chief pointed out a bank that’s added a security guard outside. In one neighborhood, somebody’s been stealing power tools. In another, city officials have been seeking grant funding to build a sidewalk to improve safety for kids walking to school.
Stanwood, a city of 6,200 in north Snohomish County, contracts with the sheriff’s office for police services.
Deputies in blue Stanwood uniforms routinely assist city parks staff with closing and opening gates, Hawkins said. They sometimes check on street lights and report burned-out bulbs.
“We’re out here. We might as well do it while we’re out on patrol,” he said.
Still, Stanwood has seen a few large-scale police incidents in past years, including a shooting at an assisted living home last week.
In March, a 3-year-old Camano Island boy fatally shot his sister with their father’s handgun in the family’s van, which was parked near City Hall. The shooting brought a lot of attention, in part because the girl’s father is a Marysville police officer. The court case just recently wrapped up. The Marysville internal investigation is ongoing.
Then, in September, the city’s uptown shopping center was shut down for hours one morning after a deputy shot and wounded a suspected serial bank robber. The suspect survived. His court case is ongoing. At least two other serial bank robbers have targeted Stanwood in recent years.
Early in 2012, Stanwood Mayor Dianne White asked Hawkins to develop a robbery prevention program, she said. She’s a pharmacist, and she knew pharmacies and banks often are targeted for holdups.
Stanwood police met with bank employees in town in the spring, Hawkins said. The FBI joined them and shared tips.
“We were building that open communication,” he said. “Part of this is just listening.”
In the fall, someone robbed a fast-food sandwich shop in town. Police since have made an arrest.
The incident alarmed Leslie Tripp, the State Farm agent for Stanwood and Camano Island. She and Hawkins serve together on the board of Stanwood’s Chamber of Commerce.
Soon after the restaurant robbery, she ran into Hawkins at a grocery store in town. She asked the chief to find a way to educate local business owners about crime prevention.
About 25 people attended the first Business Watch meeting in November, Hawkins said. They shared safety concerns and talked about security issues.
The next Business Watch meeting is planned sometime before spring, Tripp said.
Meanwhile, Stanwood police are using social media to keep people informed. The department’s Facebook page has more than 1,380 followers, the most for any police page in the county.
The day the bank robber was shot, phone calls flooded City Hall and the police station, Hawkins said. There wasn’t a lot city staff could say.
They’ve since joined Nixle, an online program where people can sign up to receive free text and email emergency alerts. Stanwood is trying to keep the alerts limited to major incidents, Hawkins said. An alert went out soon after last week’s shooting, letting people know no children had been hurt.
Hawkins’ drive through town last month took him through Copper Station, a neighborhood on the north end of Stanwood where about 100 homes are being built.
One of the first new Neighborhood Watch meetings was held there in early January, he said. About 40 people attended.
Police talked to them about when and how to report potential crimes.
About 3 the next morning, someone who had attended the meeting called 911, Hawkins said. There was a suspicious car in her neighborhood.
The “suspicious” activity turned out to be a deputy on patrol, Hawkins said. But the caller was doing what she was supposed to — keeping a lookout.
Development at Copper Station dried up during the economic downturn a few years ago, Hawkins said. Last month, construction was bustling again, with workers putting up housing frames and digging foundations.
“This is good,” Hawkins said. “This is good stuff.”
By Rob Capriccioso, Indian Country Today Media Network
President Barack Obama surprised many in Washington, D.C. on February 6 by announcing his nomination of a political unknown, Sally Jewell, to become his next Secretary of the Department of the Interior after the impending exit of Ken Salazar.
Jewell, CEO of an outdoor gear and clothing company called Recreational Equipment Inc., will be expected to oversee an agency that includes the Bureau of Indian Affairs and many Indian-based areas, including trust programs, education, and economic development. She is also a former commercial banker and oil company engineer longtime advocate for conservation and outdoor recreation.
So what does Jewell, 56, know about Indian country?
Not much, according to her biography, and her office hasn’t responded to queries on whether she has personally taken an interest in Indian issues in her previous positions.
On that question, the White House has also been mum, saying that her office should be contacted, but adding that she is expected to be committed to Native Americans.
“The President has clearly demonstrated a strong commitment to Indian country over the past four years, and Mrs. Jewell is deeply committed to continuing to build on our nation-to-nation relationship with Indian country,” said spokesman Shin Inouye when asked about whether the White House has investigated her experiences involving Indian country-related issues.
“She is committed to building our nation-to-nation relationship with Indian country,” echoed Obama in his nomination speech of Jewell.
One small Indian-related fact has emerged to date about Jewell’s past: While she served on the Board of Regents of the University of Washington, the group approved the construction of the university’s new $5.8 million longhouse.
Despite the seemingly thin Indian-focused resume, Indian supporters of Jewell from Washington state said her career offers some insight into the type of leader she will be if confirmed by the Senate. “Sally’s strong roots in the Seattle Area, her leadership at REI, WaMu, and the University of Washington, have given her a clear perspective on the power and culture of the many Indian nations in the area,” said Chris Stearns, a Navajo attorney with the Hobbs Straus Dean & Walker law firm in Seattle, and a former Clinton Administration official. “She has been a hands-on leader of REI who built a culture of inclusivity and respect among its employees and shareholders. DOI is a much different beast than REI, no doubt, but her leadership style and history bode well for Indian country.”
“I receive the word of President Obama’s appointment of Ms. Jewell with confidence and great anticipation that she will do an exceptional job for not only tribal nations but all people and for the wondrous natural heritage of our great country,” said Fawn Sharp, president of the Quinault Indian Nation and the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, in a statement. Sharp said that she has “great faith and trust that [Jewell] will understand the incredible significance of her new position to the tribal nations, and that she will always work with us to help safeguard and restore the environment, and support the rights, the heritage and the way of life of Native people.”
Some Indian organizations, while not intimately familiar with Jewell, praised her selection.
“Sally Jewell’s diverse experience in energy, conservation, and stewardship efforts, presents an exciting opportunity for the country and tribal nations to make great strides and continue the transformation of the Department of the Interior under this President,” according to a statement from the National Congress of American Indians.
“Indian tribes have much to offer regarding the deeper mysteries and wonder of this continent,” said Brian Patterson, president of the United South and Eastern Tribes organization, in a statement. “Ms. Jewell’s experience and background indicate that in a variety of ways she has this sense of wonder and sincerely seeks to understand these mysteries.”
Indian country-focused Congress members are also paying attention to Jewell’s knowledge of Indian issues, and senators plan to ask her about it during the confirmation process.
“Senator Cantwell is confident that Sally Jewell would continue the Obama Administration’s progress in strengthening the government-to-government relationship with Indian country,” said Jared Leopold, a spokesman for Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. “Senator Cantwell looks forward to discussing issues important to tribes during Sally Jewell’s confirmation process.”
“Congressman Young hopes that if confirmed, Ms. Jewell shows a willingness to work with Congress on issues such as increased tribal self-governance and responsible resource development,” added Michael Anderson, a spokesman for Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, and chair of the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs.
Born in Britain, Jewell has two grown children with her husband, Warren, and she is a graduate of the University of Washington.
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.”
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.
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.
MONROE — Police on Friday arrested an Idaho man, 53, suspected of robbing a Monroe bank last week and using some of the loot to buy drugs and sex.
A day after the Feb. 1 heist at the Union Bank, police received a tip from a woman about a possible suspect. She told investigators she met a man at the Tulalip Casino and later spent the evening with him.
During their time together, the man allegedly admitted he robbed a bank in Monroe. He reportedly showed the woman the note he used to demand money from a teller. She also said the man gave her money to buy methamphetamine and to pay her for sex, police said.
The woman gave investigators the man’s cellphone number. Detectives later learned the man’s name and driver’s license number from the hotel registration card. Police compared video footage from the bank with surveillance from the hotel. The suspect was seen entering the casino and hotel wearing the same clothes he had on during the heist.
Detectives called the man on Friday and asked him to come to the police station. They learned he was at his mother’s Monroe house. The man was arrested and booked into the Snohomish County Jail.
Looking for something to do with the family this weekend? Come to the Hibulb Cultural Center and celebrate Valentine’s Day with the kids. We will be doing crafts, story time, and screening Be My Valentine Charlie Brown. Activities begin at 1:00pm and will go until 3:00pm.
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.
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.
