VAWA Archives - Page 2 of 4

VAWA Already Improving Life for Pascua Yaqui Tribe

Jacelle Ramon-SauberanPascua Yaqui Tribe Attorney General Amanda Lomayesva and Pascua Yaqui Tribe Chief Prosecutor Alfred Urbina are working to improve the Pascua Yaqui community through the Violence Against Women Act. — Jacelle Ramon-Sauberan
Pascua Yaqui Tribe Attorney General Amanda Lomayesva and Pascua Yaqui Tribe Chief Prosecutor Alfred Urbina are working to improve the Pascua Yaqui community through the Violence Against Women Act.

By Jacelle Ramon-Sauberan, Indian Country Today

The Pascua Yaqui Tribe is making progress in Southern Arizona after being chosen to take early advantage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). “So far VAWA is helping us analyze our own process and the Pascua Yaqui Tribal Council is really interested in how this is going to work out,” said Amanda Lomayesva, Attorney General for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe.

On February 6, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Tulalip Tribes of Washington and the Umatilla Tribes of Oregon were chosen by the Obama Administration to exercise criminal jurisdiction over certain crimes of domestic and dating violence, regardless of the defendant’s Indian or non-Indian status, under the 2013 VAWA law.

Lomayesva (Lumbee) said the Pascua Yaqui Tribe became interested in VAWA when they wanted to expand their tribal jurisdiction. “I think it really started to gain steam in 2007 when people started talking about problems in Indian Country –about crimes that were reoccurring and not being taken care of,” said Chief Prosecutor for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Alfred Urbina.

Not to mention, the Domestic Violence is the main crime on the Pascua Yaqui reservation, he said.

Prior to the assertion of VAWA, when a non-Native American committed a crime on the Pascua Yaqui reservation, the Pascua Yaqui Police officers would drop them off on the edge of the reservation, Lomayesva said.

Also, prior to 2010, tribal members accused of a crime would only be incarcerated for one year and the Pascua Yaqui jail was not fit for anyone. The office was in a house and the jail was a cage, said Urbina (Pascua Yaqui).

In 2010, the Tribal Law and Orders Act changed that allowing the tribe to sentence criminals up to three years of incarceration per offense with a maximum of nine years.

And the tribe was able to have a multi-purpose justice complex built through a $20 Million American Reinvestment Recovery Act in 2010. “There has been a real tribal effort to address these problems and a challenge to not only our courts, but all tribal courts to protect tribal members,” said Lomayesva.

The tribe currently has 12 VAWA investigations that have lead to arrests of non-Native Americans, said Urbina. “We had two individuals that were wanted felons by the State of Arizona hiding out on the reservation,” he said. “This happens on our reservation a lot, and other surrounding reservations.”

Also, they are finding that majority of the women involved in the cases are single, young females with children. Typically, both parties are unemployed, alcohol is involved and the accused are repeat offenders.

Urbina admits it is too early to start drawing conclusions. But he’s beginning to see what some of the key issues are, and is asking questions. “VAWA is giving us an opportunity to do an assessment and look into bigger problems,” he said.

Lomayesva admits that a couple of the VAWA cases have fallen apart, and it has led them to question what the tribe can do to help support domestic violence victims.

Tribal members Lourdes Escalante and Feliciano Cruz Sr. both believe VAWA will have a positive effect on their community. “As a community member I think it is about time the tribe start prosecuting non-Natives,” Cruz said. “If they live on our reservation they should abide by our laws.”

Cruz believes that domestic violence on the Pascua Yaqui reservation has gone on long enough and is happy to see that non-Native Americans who are accused won’t be “slapped on the back of the hands anymore. They commit the crime, they go to do the time.”

As for Escalante, a law student at the University of Arizona, is interested to see what VAWA does for her tribe. “I like that my tribe was one of the first to take this on,” she said. “Hopefully, it makes a huge difference; but since it is still kind of new, we will have to wait and see.”

Justice Long Denied Comes to Indian Country; First Post-VAWA Trial Set

Tanya Lee, Indian Country Today

The Pascua Yaqui Tribe in Arizona is making history. Nearly 40 years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) that American Indian tribes did not have jurisdiction over non-Indians who committed crimes on reservations, the Pascua Yaqui are preparing to try as many as 10 non-Indians alleged to have committed domestic violence crimes on their reservation.

The stats for crimes against women in Indian country are appalling. A Department of Justice report states that American Indian/Alaska Native women are significantly more likely to be raped, physically assaulted and stalked than are white women. If, on an Indian reservation, that abuse was committed by a non-Indian, tribal law enforcement was not authorized to arrest the perpetrator and tribal courts did not have the jurisdiction to try him. Both arrest and prosecution were the responsibility of the federal government. But these are such challenging crimes to successfully bring to justice, federal resources are seldom deployed to deal with them.

The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization of 2013 radically changed that. Under VAWA Indian tribes will have jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit domestic violence crimes on reservations. The law will go into effect for all tribes in March 2015, but the Justice Department in February designated three tribes – the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the Tulalip Tribes of Washington – for a pilot program that allows them to exercise the authority immediately.

Troy Eid, chairman of the Indian Law and Order Commission mandated by TLOA, says, “The Pascua Yaqui Tribe has put a lot of energy into being ready for this day. My impression is they really tried to err on the side of caution so there would be no justification for overturning a tribal court verdict on federal review.”

Listening to Pascua Yaqui Tribe Chief Prosecutor Alfred Urbina describe what has gone into this moment makes “a lot of energy” seem like an understatement. Urbina detailed some of the issues the tribe has had to deal with and what has been learned in an effort to help other tribes put their justice systems in order to begin prosecuting these cases. “The ability to prosecute non-Indians for domestic violence brings up a lot of questions for the tribe,” he says.

Urbina explains that there have been 11 recent incidents on the reservation with American Indian victims and non-Indian suspects; some are still in investigation or waiting for warrants to be served, while some are in the process of being prosecuted. The first trial is scheduled to begin August 19, but some cases could be resolved through plea agreements before that.

One thing that has been surprising is the number of cases. “We thought we’d have 5 to 10 cases for the whole calendar year,” Urbina says. “But in just the first two months since the tribe has had the authority to arrest non-Indians, there have been more than 10 arrests.”

Demographics are critical to predicting how many cases tribes will need to prepare for. So is location – whether or not the reservation is near an urban center or a major highway. Among the questions tribes will have to address is: Who is actually living in tribal housing? The perception is that tribal members live in tribal housing, but there are probably other people as well, especially if there are a lot of single mothers, says Urbina.

Other questions shed light on matters such as – What is the composition of law enforcement on the reservation? Do people trust law enforcement? Urbina explains that if people have seen non-prosecution of DV cases for many years by both tribal and federal authorities, distrust may have built up and this will affect the success of the cases the tribe brings to trial. How does the tribe get a warrant served off-reservation and the suspect extradited back to the reservation for trial? What if a suspect does not speak English—will an interpreter be available for court proceedings and for conferring with an attorney?

Then there is the question of public defenders. “Some tribes are saying we just need to hire a lawyer, but that person would need to have a background in Indian law, Indian sovereignty issues, different ways of doing things in Indian country and tribal court history. If the lawyer doesn’t have that kind of information it will impact the case.”

One compromise that had to be made to get the law passed was that the attorneys and judges in cases where whites are being tried have to be state-licensed. This brings up the question of access. How will public defenders hired by the tribe have access to their clients on rural reservations?

And that in turn brings up the question of costs—of public defenders, judges, travel, housing of both legal personnel and of those being held for trial and medical care for prisoners. These are issues that if not handled correctly could lead to federal appeals on constitutional grounds, Urbina explains.

Urbina estimates it could cost up to $500,000 for a tribe to get their justice system set up to meet the prerequisites to prosecute non-Indians for domestic violence crimes. “The process will be out of reach for some tribal governments without significant assistance from the federal government, but in order to get this law passed, no money was appropriated for that purpose,” says Urbina.

Nonetheless, the Pascua Yaqui are in a financial position to bring justice long delayed to women on their reservation and they are wasting no time in getting started. Says Eid, “Nothing could be more important for a tribal government to do. This has been an area where law and order breaks down. It’s important that this works.” Urbina puts it this way: “There is nothing more basic than the right to live in peace. Everything else flows from that.”

Alaska Attorney General criticizes suggestions in report on Bush justice

By RICHARD MAUER

rmauer@adn.comApril 8, 2014

JUNEAU — Alaska Attorney General Michael Geraghty criticized a federal commission report on criminal justice in the Bush, declaring its suggestions that tribes should have autonomy for policing and holding court was little more than an invitation to create reservations in Alaska.

“It is an over simplification to suggest that forming reservations where tribes can exert exclusive jurisdiction is a solution to the problems that afflict Alaska’s Native peoples,” Geraghty told the House Community & Regional Affairs Committee on its second hearing into the November report by the U.S. Indian Law & Order Commission. “I disagree with many of their recommendations but not with the problem they have identified.”

That problem is Alaska’s high rates of domestic and sexual violence, and the glaring lack of law enforcement and security for villagers. The commission, mandated by Congress and appointed in 2010 by the White House and congressional leaders of both parties, reported its findings in November. It devoted a whole chapter on Alaska’s troubles, the only state it singled out for such treatment.

On the phone from Denver, the commission chairman, Troy Eid, told the committee that Geraghty was mischaracterizing the report’s conclusion. In calling for greater tribal autonomy, the commission wasn’t seeking reservation status for Alaska’s 229 federally recognized tribes, only one of which is on a reservation — Metlakatla.

Rather, Eid said, the commission said the state should recognize tribes as sovereign governments and that “Indian Country” — the federal term for describing where indigenous people have inherent authority — exists in Alaska. The should state encourage local governments to take over policing in the Bush and not insist on centralized, top-down control from regional hubs.

Geraghty said the state was experimenting in the Interior’s Tanana region with allowing tribal courts to have jurisdiction over non tribal members for some misdemeanors — but only when the defendant agrees, and only by treating the matters as civil cases without the possibility of jail time.

“My differences with the report should not obscure the most fundamental point: there’s more we can do and should be doing with tribes and in tribal courts in particular, to make these communities safer — I don’t quarrel with that point one iota,” Geraghty said.

But Geraghty’s term for the Tanana agreements — a delegation of authority — itself brought criticism from another witness, David Voluck, a tribal court judge and co-author of one of the leading books on laws affecting Alaska Natives.

“I vote that we reform the name of these agreements from limited delegation agreements to intergovernmental agreements,” Voluck said. “Even the word ‘delegation’ has a flavor of paternalism — that ‘OK, we’re going to let you do this now.'”

Rep. Sam Kito III, D-Juneau, asked Geraghty about how tribal courts now deal with cases in which a non-member of the tribe is a party.

Geraghty said that issue mainly comes up in child welfare cases, when tribes assume jurisdiction if the child is a member, even if a parent is not.

“There’s a case pending before the Alaska Supreme Court now involving the ability of a tribal court to exert jurisdiction over someone who’s never lived in the community and is not a member of the tribe, and the gentleman objected to tribal court jurisdiction on that basis, and he had his parental rights terminated,” Geraghty said.

Geraghty said he was referring to the case of Edward Parks, a member of the Stevens Village tribe who was convicted in state court in Fairbanks of kidnapping and brutally beating his girlfriend. Their child, “S.P.,” was enrolled in Minto and the Minto tribal court terminated Parks’ parental rights. The state intervened on his behalf in the Supreme Court, seeking to void the tribal court order declaring him an unfit parent because Minto shouldn’t have jurisdiction over him.

Geraghty told the committee he expected the case would clarify the rights of non-tribal members in tribal court.

Voluck testified that the state, by its challenges of tribal court orders, was actually showing hostility to tribal courts.

“One of the courts I work for issues something as controversial as child support orders, for children in need,” Voluck said, a touch of sarcasm in his voice. “We’re not locking up white people, I don’t have an electric chair, I’m not doing anything that’s frightening. I’m not taxing, I’m not zoning, it has nothing to do with land and everything to do with Native children.”

“Your state is battling us tooth and nail and we are now in the Supreme Court over whether it’s kosher for me to issue a child support order for a tribal child. This, ladies and gentlemen of this committee, I posit is a grave waste of your resources.”

The co-chairs of the committee, Reps. Ben Nageak, D-Barrow, and Gabrielle LeDoux, R-Anchorage, said they would continue to examine ways the Legislature could improve criminal justice in the Bush.

Reach Richard Mauer at rmauer@adn.com or (907) 500-7388.

Sen. Begich Presses VAWA Protections for Alaska Natives

Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) discusses his pending Safe Families and Villages legislation, as well as a clean Carcieri legislative fix.

Rob Capriccioso, Indian Country Today Media Network

Having just chaired a portion of a recent hearing of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Sen. Mark Begich spoke to Indian Country Today Media Network for an interview focused on his pending Safe Families and Villages legislation, as well as the recently introduced clean Carcieri legislative fix.

Thank you for doing another interview, senator. The last time we talked, you mentioned the need for a hearing focused on strengthening the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to include jurisdictional provisions for Alaska Native tribes. That hearing, which you co-chaired April 2, highlighted yours and Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) Safe Families and Villages legislation, and your desire to repeal Section 910 of VAWA, which excludes Alaska Natives from the VAWA jurisdiction provisions granted by Congress last year to tribes in the lower 48 states. Please explain your desire to repeal Section 910.

What 910 really does is prevent the Alaska Native community from having full criminal prosecution regarding any crimes that may occur within what we consider tribal land. It also does not allow us to have equal type of law enforcement that reservation tribes do. When someone comes onto reservation land [in the lower 48 states], and they commit a crime on that land as a Native or non-Native, they can still go through a prosecution process. With us, that can’t happen. It really is a problem. We have tribal courts that exist with cooperation and agreement from the state, but they have very limited capacity.

The VAWA with the increased jurisdiction provisions for tribes in the lower 48 just passed Congress just last year with 910 in there. Why was 910 included in that legislation at all?

We attempted to try to get it out, but we did not have agreement, honestly, within our [federal] delegation on this. I’m a very strong supporter of tribal rights and tribal responsibility and self-determination. I’ve always been that way—it’s not a newfound belief since coming to the Senate. I think in a lot of ways I couldn’t get agreement. I knew if it was put in there the way it was written, Section 910, that we would see a backlash from within our Alaska Native communities. And that is what is happening. I wish we could have taken it out, but we also had the state of Alaska being totally against taking that section out of there. They wanted that section. I know they lobbied members of the [Senate Committee on Indian Affairs] when the bill was being reviewed, and they were able to prevail on the idea that 910 was needed so as not to interfere with states’ rights. I wasn’t on the committee at that time. If I was on the committee at that time, I would have done everything I could to prevent that section from being added in there.

Is Sen. Murkowski, part of your Alaska delegation, on board with getting rid of 910?

Yes. She’s agreed to that. We had a lot of discussion after the bill passed. She felt the conversation from the Alaska Native community really moved her to accept this as an important piece.

How about Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) on the House side—has he weighed in on the idea of repealing 910?

He has not to me. That does not mean that his staff and my staff aren’t talking. But I haven’t heard a problem here yet.

Beyond repealing 910, it’s clear that Alaska Native tribal advocates want amendments added to your bill that would increase and enhance Alaska Native tribal jurisdiction over non-tribal offenders. You were supportive during the hearing of adding those kinds of amendments, but is that going to be easy?

It’s not going to be easy, but I will tell you, the Alaska Federation of Natives and a group called the Tanana Chiefs Conference have created a tribal law project that encourages jurisdiction for tribes to implement tribal law and order issues. We know that non-tribal member perpetrators are a problem for tribes in Alaska, yet tribes have no jurisdiction. I’m not sure how far we will get with this. The good news is there are more folks getting aware of this issue. Sen. [Heidi] Heitkamp [D-N.D.], as you heard during the hearing, was not aware, really, of what was going on in Alaska on these issues. And now she is willing to work with us in any way she can to make our legislation have the same impact as the increased tribal jurisdiction in the lower 48.

Tribal judge Natasha Singh testified in favor of a tribal law project-inspired amendment at the hearing. What are the political realities in your state of getting that project implemented?

This would deal with curbing child abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and other issues among tribal members and non-members, yet the state is not supporting it at this point. In order to make it work, I want to put it inside the Safe Families and Villages Act, so we have more tools to fight these incredibly big problems. The politics of it—the state will more than likely oppose it. But I hope they are supportive of the people of Alaska.

Is there tribal consensus in your state that this tribal law project amendment is the way to go?

Yes. There is no question. We have received enormous support from individual tribes, groups, the Alaska Federation of Natives—everywhere across the state.

Your legislation currently encourages the state to enter into intergovernmental agreements with tribes related to the enforcement of certain state laws by the tribes. You made it clear at the hearing that this provision isn’t enough. But why not? Why wouldn’t that be a good start, and then you try to do more later on?

Here’s the challenge. Years ago, when the Tribal Law and Order Act passed, I sat with state of Alaska officials, the federal delegation, and others, and I said back then that I wanted these better provisions for Alaska Natives. And they said, ‘Oh no, let’s pass the Tribal Law and Order Act, and it will all get resolved.’ Now here we are several years later with the same story, the same talk, and no results. My view is that the state would like the Alaska Native people to be subservient to them. That is not acceptable when we have outrageous crime statistics facing Alaska Native communities.

Are there a lot of Congress members who would take a stand against allowing tribes in Alaska to be treated the same as tribes in the lower 48 on these matters?

I don’t think so, but you never know. On this one, I think we can make the case.

If state officials don’t agree with repealing 910 and adding the other amendments, is that really going to make this bill tougher to pass?

It may be tougher, but I feel confident that at the end of the day we can prevail. The state’s current administration does not recognize tribes. I think that is apparent to a lot of senators, and as I lay that out more, I think they will be shocked. It’s the same administration that wanted to strip away voting protection rights for our tribes and the same administration that has battled against tribal subsistence. They just don’t support tribes.

I have to ask you about Carcieri again and the controversial 2009 Supreme Court decision that affected the Department of the Interior’s ability to place lands into trust for tribes. Since we last talked, you have cosponsored a clean Carcieri legislative fix that would recognize Interior’s ability to take lands into trust for all tribes, no matter when they came under federal jurisdiction. Give opposition to a clean fix by some Democrats including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), it seems clear that Republican support is going to be needed for it to pass. How likely is that?

Any time you can get a bipartisan bill, it’s a good thing. This is a complex issue. It needs to be a clean fix. I think if we can get some Republicans, it would be very positive. We need to resolve this and get it settled. For us to continue to leave this lingering, it is harming tribes throughout the country. I know Sen. Tester is going to work it to see what he can get.

Have you been surprised that Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), vice-chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, has been rather quiet on Carcieri?

It’s a little bit surprising, but I do think that now that the bill is out there, he knows that this is coming to a hearing, so he’s going to have commentary on it. That will help create the discussion we need. I think he has to figure out if there are other Republicans who will support this if he does. I don’t know what his thinking is, but as the vice-chair, I would expect him to have some commentary on it.

Do you work with Sen. Barrasso on various issues?

I do. I have worked with him on issues surrounding oil and gas. We just had a bill that I sponsored with him.

So you will be encouraging him to support a clean Carcieri fix?

Oh yes.

Finally, how did it feel to have that gavel in our hand when you co-chaired the recent hearing?

(laughs) It’s always a good feeling when you can manage the conversation on issues that you care a great deal about.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

NCAI celebrates anniversary of VAWA’s 2013 passage

By Cherokee Phoenix staff reports

WASHINGTON – The National Congress of American Indians marked the one-year anniversary of a great victory for tribal nations and Native women on March 7.

President Obama, joined by Vice President Biden, members of women’s organizations, law enforcement officials, tribal leaders, survivors, advocates and members of Congress, signs the Violence Against Women Act in March. (Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated Press)

It was on that day in 2013 when President Obama signed the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. At the signing ceremony, the president underscored the “inherent right (of tribal governments) to protect their people.”

For the first time since the 1978 Oliphant decision, VAWA 2013 restored tribal authority to investigate, prosecute, convict and sentence non-Indians who assault their Indian spouses or partners in Indian Country. The law created a pilot project that enabled three tribes to recently begin exercising this authority.

“Today is a day to celebrate what we have achieved together and commit ourselves to ensure the ongoing success of this important law. It acknowledges that tribal nations are the best equipped to ensure public safety in our communities and provides the tools we need to protect Native women,” NCAI President Brian Cladoosby said.

The Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, the Tulalip Tribes of Washington and the Umatilla Tribes of Oregon–began exercising special criminal jurisdiction over certain crimes of domestic and dating violence, regardless of the defendant’s Indian or non-Indian status in February.

“VAWA 2013 is a tremendous victory. I am grateful to those who have stepped up to take the lead in the implementation phase,” Terri Henry, Tribal Councilor of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and co-chair of the NCAI Task Force on Violence Against Women, said. “I want to congratulate the three tribes participating in the pilot project and remind everyone, we still have work to do.”

However, VAWA does not mark the end of the NCAI’s efforts to combat domestic violence in Indian Country, NCAI Executive Director Jackie Pata said. “Tribal nations remain steadfast in the important work of protecting our Native women and securing our communities,” she said.

For Abused Native American Women, New Law Provides A ‘Ray Of Hope’

Deborah Parker, vice chair of the Tulalip Tribes of Washington state, reacts to President Barack Obama signing the Violence Against Women Act in 2013 in Washington.Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP — Deborah Parker, vice chair of the Tulalip Tribes of Washington state, reacts to President Barack Obama signing the Violence Against Women Act in 2013 in Washington.
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

By Hansi Lo Wang, from NPR All Things Considered show

This Thursday, three Native American tribes are changing how they administer justice.

For almost four decades, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling has barred tribes from prosecuting non-American Indian defendants. But as part of last year’s re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, a new program now allows tribes to try some non-Indian defendants in domestic abuse cases.

It will be another year before the program expands to other eligible federally-recognized tribes around the country in March 2015. But the Department of Justice has selected three tribes to exercise this authority first, including the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Oregon, and the Tulalip Tribes, located north of Seattle.

‘Going To War’

Deborah Parker serves as the Tulalip Tribes’ vice chair. For three years, she flew back and forth between Washington state and Washington, D.C., giving speeches and knocking on doors — an experience that she says felt like “going to war.”

“You got to go to battle,” Parker says, “and you have to convince a lot of people that native women are worth protecting,”

And that protection, Parker was convinced, had to come from Congress. So she pushed for legislation allowing American Indian tribes to prosecute non-Indian defendants in domestic violence cases.

About four out of every ten women of American Indian or Alaskan Native descent have “experienced rape, physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It’s an alarming statistic that Parker knows all too well from growing up on the reservation.

“We didn’t have a strong police presence when I was younger. Even [if you called] the police, often they didn’t respond,” she says. “When they did, they would say, ‘Oh, it’s not our jurisdiction, sorry.’ [And] prosecutors wouldn’t show up.”

A Question Of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is the key word in this discussion.

In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe that tribal governments have no jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Native Americans on tribal land.

Instead, tribes have to rely on federal prosecutors to take on such cases, and prosecutors have not always been able or willing to consistently pursue reports of domestic violence.

Deborah Parker and other advocates pushed to address this issue — and some lawmakers in Congress pushed back.

One of the most vocal opponents of the new program was Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa. He voiced his concerns about the constitutionality of the program during a Senate debate last February, weeks before the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized.

“The key stumbling block to enacting a bill at this time is the provision concerning Indian tribal courts,” Grassley said, referring to a provision that allows American Indian tribal courts to have jurisdiction over non-Indians accused of domestic violence.

Stepping Towards A Solution

But Fred Urbina, chief prosecutor for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, says the provision that passed is fairly complicated and narrow. “This basically helped it pass through Congress and get approval, so everybody’s describing this as a first step,” he says.

The “special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction” program is limited to certain domestic violence cases involving non-Native American defendants who are in existing relationships with Native Americans and living or working on the reservation. In Alaska, it only applies to the Metlakatla Indian Community of Annette Islands Reserve.

Still, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe’s Attorney General Amanda Sampson Lomayesva says the program will offer a new route for justice.

“It is a ray of hope,” she says “Maybe we can start protecting people and having the tribal members who live here on the reservation feel like something will be done.”

Brent Leonhard, an attorney for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, also sees the program as a partial solution to “a mess created both by a Supreme Court decision and by federal law and policy.”

“This is a step towards trying to improve that,” he says.

Parker acknowledges that the program “doesn’t answer all the questions” about how tribal governments can play a more direct role in addressing crime by non-Native Americans.

“But it allows us to exert jurisdiction and arrest those who violate protection orders [and commit] dating violence [or] domestic violence,” says Parker, who adds that she hopes the program will give a stronger voice to more Native American women

Three Tribes to Begin Prosecuting Non-Indian Domestic Violence Offenders

Rob Capriccioso, ICTMN

Three pilot tribes have been chosen by the Obama Administration to take early advantage of Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) provisions passed by Congress last year that allow tribes to prosecute non-Indian offenders for domestic violence offenses on reservations.

The Justice Department announced February 6 that the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, the Tulalip Tribes of Washington, and the Umatilla Tribes of Oregon will be the first in the nation to be able to exercise criminal jurisdiction over certain crimes of domestic and dating violence, regardless of the defendant’s Indian or non-Indian status, under the 2013 VAWA law.

“Our actions today mark a historic turning point,” Associate Attorney General Tony West said in a press release announcing the decision. “We believe that by certifying certain tribes to exercise jurisdiction over these crimes, we will help decrease domestic and dating violence in Indian country, strengthen tribal capacity to administer justice and control crime, and ensure that perpetrators of sexual violence are held accountable for their criminal behavior.”

Beyond this pilot required by Congress, the law allows increased tribal jurisdiction to go into effect for all tribes in the lower 48 states in March 2015. Tribes at that time will not need Justice Department approval if they meet provisions of the law required for enhanced jurisdiction over domestic and dating violence cases.

Justice officials said West chose the three tribes for pilot participation because their tribal court systems have adequate safeguards in place to fully protect defendants’ rights under the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. They further said the decision to choose the three tribes were based on reviews of application questionnaires submitted by the tribes in December 2013, along with excerpts of tribal laws and policies.

“The Tulalip Tribes is honored to be among those chosen for the Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction pilot program,” Tulalip Chairman Mel Sheldon said in a press release. “Getting justice for our tribal members, where it concerns domestic and intimate partner violence, has been a long time coming.”

“This is very positive news for tribes,” added Troy Eid, the recent chair of the Tribal Law and Order Commission who is scheduled to testify on VAWA and other tribal justice issues before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs February 12. “It’s wonderful to see that three were approved, and the hope is that the other tribes that submitted applications are getting strong assistance from the Department of Justice to get up and running very soon.”

Six tribes in total have applied so far to participate in the pilot project, according to the National Congress of American Indians. The three that applied that that were not approved on February 6 are still under review, said Wyn Hornbuckle, a spokesman for Justice; they are the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, the Penobscot Indian Nation, and the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. Tribal justice advocates say Justice has shown a willingness to work with the tribes to help them be able to take part in the law, and Hornbuckle said tribes may submit applications to participate in the pilot project any time before March 7, 2015. Some tribes were opposed to the pilot portion of the law, believing they should have been given immediate increased jurisdiction upon passage of the law, but the pilot was a compromise between Senate and House legislators added into the law in 2013 so that it could gain enough support to be approved by both chambers.

Once the full law goes into effect in 2015, Eid predicts many people will be asking why tribes were not trusted for so long. “The idea that local governments should have jurisdiction over these kinds of offenses is a basic bedrock principle of the American justice system,” he says. “There is no reason for tribes not to have this local control, as do all other local communities.”

Before the 1978 Supreme Court decision opinion in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, federally recognized tribes were widely able to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants. Since that decision, which severely limited tribal sovereignty, tribes and the federal government have documented large amounts of domestic violence and dating violence committed by non-Indian abusers, yet tribes have not been able to prosecute these offenders, and the federal government has been slow to curb the problem with its own justice system.

In conjunction with the announcement, administration officials cited on the White House blog a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found 46 percent of Native American women have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.

Tribal leaders and advocates spent much of 2012 and 2013 pushing for tribal jurisdictional provisions to be restored in the VAWA reauthorization against intense Republican opposition. After a prolonged battle in Congress, they were finally successful when the reauthorization was signed into law by President Barack Obama in March 2013.

“We lift our hands to all those who fought for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, including our own Tulalip Tribes councilwoman, Deborah Parker,” Sheldon added.

Alaska Natives, meanwhile, are currently waging a campaign for passage of a congressional VAWA fix that would give their tribal communities jurisdiction over similar domestic and dating offenses. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska) have introduced legislation called the Safe Families and Communities Act, which does not go nearly as far as the 2013 VAWA law in increasing tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian domestic violence and dating offenders.

Alaska Natives are pressuring Begich, who is in a close re-election race, to support a congressional fix that will treat Alaska Native communities the same as tribes in the rest of the country on jurisdictional matters. Alaska Native tribes make up 40 percent of all federally recognized tribes.

Tulalip Tribes One of Three Tribes Nationwide to Implement Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction Under VAWA 2013

Pilot Projects Allow Tribal Prosecution of Non-Indian Abusers

For the First Time in More Than Three Decades

Press Release, Office of Public Affairs Tulalip Tribes

Tulalip, WA—February 6, 2014–The Tulalip Tribes will be one of three American Indian tribes in the nation to exercise special jurisdiction over certain crimes of domestic and dating violence, regardless of the defendant’s Indian or non-Indian status, under a pilot project authorized by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013). The two other tribes are the Umatilla in Oregon and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona.

“The Tulalip Tribes is honored to be among those chosen for the Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ) pilot program. Getting justice for our tribal members, where it concerns domestic and intimate partner violence, has been a long time coming,” said Tulalip Chairman Mel Sheldon. “Together, with our fellow Tribal nations, we celebrate the fact that the reauthorized VAWA of 2013 has recognized our inherent legal jurisdiction to bring all perpetrators of domestic violence against our members, on our lands, to justice. We lift our hands to all those who fought for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, including our own Tulalip Tribes councilwoman, Deborah Parker.”

“The Tulalip Tribes has shown great leadership with a robust and comprehensive justice system,” said U.S. Attorney Jenny A. Durkan. “This special criminal jurisdiction will translate into better protection for members of the tribal community and their families, and ensure that all offenders are appropriately prosecuted and sanctioned in tribal court. I am grateful for the strong leadership exercised by the Tulalips, particularly Chairman Mel Sheldon, Councilmember Deborah Parker and Judge Theresa Pouley. We look forward to continuing our important work with the Tulalips.”

Deborah Parker, Vice Chairwoman of the Tulalip Tribes, worked alongside Senator Patty Murray, and many others, to advocate for the new tribal provisions included in VAWA 2013. “It’s amazing to be at this time and place and to witness such a critical change in law. Justice will now be served because we have the necessary legal tools to prosecute those who perpetrate against our tribal members on our reservation, regardless of race, religion or affiliation,“ she said.

Although the provisions authorizing the special jurisdiction take effect generally in March 2015, the law also gives the Attorney General discretion to grant a tribe’s request to exercise the jurisdiction earlier, through a voluntary pilot project. The authority to approve such requests has been delegated to Associate Attorney General Tony West. Associate Attorney General West today congratulated tribal leaders of the Tulalip Tribes of Washington, Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, and the Umatilla Tribes of Oregon, on this historic achievement in letters to the three tribes.

“This is just the latest step forward in this administration’s historic efforts to address the public safety crisis in Indian country. Every day, we’re working hard to strengthen partnerships with tribal leaders and confront shared challenges – particularly when it comes to protecting Indian women and girls from the shocking and unacceptably high rates of violence they too often face,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “With the important new tools provided by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, these critical pilot projects will facilitate the first tribal prosecutions of non-Indian perpetrators in recent times. This represents a significant victory for public safety and the rule of law, and a momentous step forward for tribal sovereignty and self-determination.”

“The old jurisdictional scheme failed to adequately protect the public – particularly native women – with too many crimes going unprosecuted and unpunished amidst escalating violence in Indian Country,” stated Associate Attorney General West. “Our actions today mark an historic turning point. We believe that by certifying certain tribes to exercise jurisdiction over these crimes, we will help decrease domestic and dating violence in Indian Country, strengthen tribal capacity to administer justice and control crime, and ensure that perpetrators of sexual violence are held accountable for their criminal behavior.”

Since the Supreme Court’s 1978 opinion in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, tribes have been prohibited from exercising criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants. This included domestic violence and dating violence committed by non-Indian abusers against their Indian spouses, intimate partners and dating partners. Even a violent crime committed by a non-Indian husband against his Indian wife, in the presence of her Indian children, in their home on the Indian reservation, could not be prosecuted by the tribe. In granting the pilot project requests of the Tulalip, Pascua Yaqui, and Umatilla tribes today, the United States is recognizing and affirming the tribes’ inherent power to exercise “special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction” (SDVCJ) over all persons, regardless of their Indian or non-Indian status.

As described in the Department of Justice’s Final Notice on the pilot project, today’s decisions are based on a diligent, detailed review of application questionnaires submitted by the tribes in December 2013, along with excerpts of tribal laws, rules, and policies, and other relevant information. That review, conducted in close coordination with the Department of the Interior and after formal consultation with affected Indian tribes, led the Justice Department to determine that the criminal justice system in the Tulalip, Pascua Yaqui, and Umatilla tribes have adequate safeguards in place to fully protect defendants’ rights under the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by VAWA 2013.

The Department of Justice is posting notices of the pilot project designation on the Tribal Justice and Safety Web site (www.justice.gov/tribal/) and in the Federal Register. In addition, each tribe’s application questionnaire and related tribal laws, rules, and policies will be posted on the Web site. These materials will serve as a resource for those tribes that may also wish to participate in the pilot project or to commence exercising SDVCJ in March 2015 or later, after the pilot project has concluded.

For more information on VAWA 2013, please visit www.justice.gov/tribal/vawa-tribal.html. Media inquires contact Francesca Hillery, Office of Public Affairs Tulalip Tribes, (360) 913.2646.

About the Tulalip Tribes

The Tulalip Tribes are the successors in interest to the Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Skykomish and other tribes and bands signatory to the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott. The 22,000-acre Tulalip Indian Reservation is located north of Seattle in Snohomish County, Washington. Tribal government provides membership with health and dental clinics, family and senior housing, human services, utilities, police and courts, childcare, and higher education assistance. The Tribe maintains extensive environmental preservation and restoration programs to protect the Snohomish region’s rich natural resources, which includes marine waters, tidelands, fresh water rivers and lakes, wetlands and forests both on and off the reservation. Developable land and an economic development zone along the I-5 corridor provide revenue for tribal services. This economic development is managed through Quil Ceda Village, the first tribally chartered city in the United States, providing significant contributions and benefits tribal members and the surrounding communities. The Tribes have approximately 4,400 members. For more information, visit www.tulaliptribes-nsn.gov.

Chairman of law and order panel says Alaska should stop fighting tribal rights

Chair Troy Eid, right, addresses the audience as fellow commissioners Ted Quasula, left, and Carole Goldberg of the Indian Law and Order Commission review a section of their report at the 23rd Annual BIA Tribal Providers Conference on Wednesday, December 4, 2013, at the Dena'ina Civic and Convention Center. ERIK HILL — Anchorage Daily New — Chair Troy Eid, right, addresses the audience as fellow commissioners Ted Quasula, left, and Carole Goldberg of the Indian Law and Order Commission review a section of their report at the 23rd Annual BIA Tribal Providers Conference on Wednesday, December 4, 2013, at the Dena’ina Civic and Convention Center. ERIK HILL — Anchorage Daily New

By RICHARD MAUER rmauer@adn.com

Anchorage Daily News December 4, 2013

In the three weeks since the U.S. Indian Law & Order Commission chastised Alaska for opposing Natives who want their own village cops and courts, chairman Troy Eid says he’s been called a radical and an outsider who shouldn’t be sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong.

Eid swept aside such criticism Wednesday when the commission officially presented its report in Anchorage. He declared that Alaska “was on the wrong track” and that public safety and security were so bad in rural Alaska, especially for women and children, that it had become a national disgrace.

“I don’t claim to be an Alaskan,” said Eid, the former U.S. Attorney for Colorado, “but I know injustice when I see it.”

Speaking to a crowded room of mainly Alaska tribal officials and Native rights advocates at the 23rd annual Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Providers Conference, Eid was interrupted by applause almost every time he called on the state to acknowledge sovereignty here.

“There ought to be a recognition of tribal sovereignty as THE force that will keep people safer — and why not?” Eid said. “It’s what we do everywhere else in the United States. We recognize local people should be able to govern themselves, make their own decisions, that they should not be fighting with their states.”

A life-long Republican, Eid said it wasn’t a matter of politics, though opponents of the report have tried to portray it that way. “I would hold my conservative credentials to (Attorney General Mike Geraghty’s) or the governor’s anytime,” he said.

The nine-member Indian Law & Order Commission was established by Congress in 2010 and directed to report back to Congress and the President on its findings after holding hearings and meetings around the country, including Alaska.

The report, released Nov. 12, was mainly about the successes and failures of reservation justice programs and recommendations on new policies and laws.

But the panel singled out Alaska in a special 30-page chapter. It accused the state of falling behind the rest of the country in providing a secure environment in Bush villages.

“What’s so shocking about Alaska is that you have the most rural state in the country and you have the most centralized law enforcement in terms of how the state provides — and fails to provide — services,” Eid said. “We cling to this model because we know it and because there’s a lot of perverse pleasure taken in controlling the lives of other people … The colonial model, which is alive and well in Alaska, does not work.”

Eid and panel members Carole Goldberg of the UCLA School of Law and Ted Quasula, a former BIA police officer from Arizona, said Alaska should recognize tribal authority, not fight it.

Tribal courts exist in Alaska, but they mainly handle adoption and other family matters. The state recognizes their jurisdiction over village members, but recently challenged a decision by the Minto tribal court that stripped a convicted wife beater of his parental rights, arguing that the court exceeded its authority because the man was enrolled in another village.

Eid and Goldberg had sharp criticism for the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, the law that paved the way for the trans-Alaska pipeline by settling Native land claims and establishing regional and village corporations in place of reservations. While supporters of the act, like the late Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, have described it as forward-looking legislation designed to integrate Alaska Natives into the dominant economy and culture, Goldberg said it was the “last gasp of termination policy” designed to separate Natives from their traditional lands.

Laws passed since then have recognized Native American tribal authority, though often, as in the Violence Against Women Act, Alaska was written out of the legislation, they said.

“Alaska has been left behind because of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,” Goldberg said.

Eid said he has heard the law described in almost reverential terms, as if it had been “set in stone” and handed down like tablets.

In fact, he said, the law has been amended 35 times since passage, and it should be changed again to bring “Indian country” — and Native sovereignty — to the thousands of acres of land owned by Alaska Natives, villages and other Native entities.

“Attitudes change, people can change, people can learn,” he said.

Eid said that when he arrived at his room in the Hotel Captain Cook Tuesday night, there was a six-page letter in an envelope on his pillow. It wasn’t a love note, but a hand-delivered defense of Alaska’s position by Geraghty, the state Attorney General.

Eid noted that Geraghty acknowledged that public safety was deficient in Alaska’s villages, but opinions diverged after that. Geraghty said that increasing the power of tribal courts and police, using the reservation model, would subject non-Natives to a justice system they had no power to affect democratically.

“The report does not explain how non-Native residents in these communities will participate in … tribal self-governance given that they have no right to vote on tribal laws or participate in electing tribal leaders,” Geraghty wrote. Since ANCSA’s passage, he said, “Alaskans have been free to reside in any Alaska community and expect to be governed by a uniform system of criminal laws.”

But Eid said that was no more relevant than he, as a voting resident of Colorado, being subject to Alaska criminal law while visiting here. If he broke the law, he said, he would expect Alaska courts to be fair to him even though he can’t vote here, just as he would expect tribal courts to fair with non-Natives in their villages.

Geraghty also referenced the Parnell administration’s secret plan to bring a measure of self-determination to some villages. As outlined by Gov. Sean Parnell to the Alaska Federation of Natives convention in October, the proposal would allow tribal courts to hear misdemeanors as civil, not criminal cases, with culturally attuned punishment or rehabilitation — but only if the defendant agreed.

Geraghty said in an November interview that he couldn’t provide a copy of the proposal he had given the Tanana Chiefs Conference because it was subject to negotiations.

“Has anyone seen this thing?” Eid asked the room Wednesday. No one had. He and Goldberg said the negotiations were doomed if the state didn’t treat the Interior villages as sovereign governments.

Reach Richard Mauer at rmauer@adn.com or 257-4345.

Tulalip is ready for VAWA

During a visit from White House officials, Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to President Obama, and Chair of the White House Council on Women and Girls, commended Tulalip for all of it’s efforts, both in criminal justice in general and specifically for playing such an impactful role bringing awareness to the plight of Native American women left out by original VAWA.
Photo/Brandi N. Montreuil

By Niki Cleary, Tulalip News

TULALIP, Wash., — “It’s not enough to cry peace, we have to act peace and we have to live peace,” Tulalip Tribal Court’s Chief Judge Theresa Pouley opened a September visit from White House officials with her teachings as a citizen of the Colville Confederated Tribes and as a tribal court judge.

She went on to explain that although talking and planning are necessary to ensure justice, walking the talk is crucial.

“Law and justice is made up of every arm of the tribe,” said Pouley. “Everyone meets once a month and we all pitch in to see what we can do to make the justice system better. A separation of powers doesn’t mean a separation of problems and certainly doesn’t mean a separation of solutions. One of the great things that Tulalip does is collaborate, out of the box, to provide services. That’s the core of the way justice gets done in Indian Country.”

That collaboration, she clarified, along with a history of providing due process beyond the requirements of the law, are just two of the reasons that Tulalip is ready to take over jurisdiction of all cases involving domestic violence. Until now, tribes have had no jurisdiction over domestic violence when one of the parties involved is not a tribal citizen.

“This is a historic moment,” said Pouley. “I want to marvel in the fact that for the first time, tribal courts are given authority over non-tribal [citizens]. We recognize that tribes are in the best position to do it [enforce the Violence Against Women Act], and we can do it better. We’re waiting to be a pilot. We’re ready to go and we can change the face of this community!”

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was originally passed 19 years ago. The re-authorization of the act was delayed by a fight to include provisions protecting Native American women.

President Obama encapsulated the necessity for those provisions during a speech he made while signing the re-authorization.

“Indian Country has some of the highest rates of domestic abuse in America. And one of the reasons is that when Native American women are abused on tribal lands by an attacker who is not Native American, the attacker is immune from prosecution by tribal courts. Well, as soon as I sign this bill that ends.”

Tulalip’s Interim Chief of Police Carlos Echevarria reiterated the importance of tribes having jurisdiction over all domestic violence cases.

“We see up to 75,000 visitors daily,” he pointed out. “We have 13,000 non-member residents, a lot of traffic and a lot of guests. I can’t tell you how frustrating it’s been arresting non-Indians for domestic crimes against members and knowing that nothing was likely to be done.”

Tulalip Vice-Chairwoman Deborah Parker, who has become known nationally as the face of Native women affected by VAWA, put it in even plainer words.

“We shouldn’t have to walk in fear that we’re going to be raped or abused at any age, from infants to our elders. We get these calls daily. Pretty soon, with your help, this will change.”

Although pleased with this expansion of tribal jurisdiction, Echevarria said it can’t be the last step in recognizing tribes rights to police their lands.

“This is a significant achievement to all tribes and another step in creating a safer community,” he said. “We’ll now move on to the next step, full criminal jurisdiction and a reversal of the Oliphant decision.”

Although no decisions or formal announcements came from the day-long tour, Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to President Obama, and Chair of the White House Council on Women and Girls commended Tulalip for all of it’s efforts, both in criminal justice in general and specifically for playing such an impactful role bringing awareness to the plight of Native American women left out by original VAWA. She made a point of thanking Vice-Chairwoman Parker for being willing to relive her painful past, ‘not just one time, but over and over and over again,’ in order to ensure that Native women are protected in the future.

“It’s an exciting time to be here,” said Jarrett. “As we heard from Chief Justice Pouley, you are ready. Now it’s up to our team to step up to the plate.”