NARF Report Shows How Voting Barriers Compound in Indian Country

Wenona Singel

A recent report from NARF examines Native voting across the entire election process, from registration and voter roll maintenance through mail voting, provisional ballots, and ballot counting. The report is titled Obstacles Persist: According to the Data by Megan Gall and Kevin Stout of Blockwell Consulting, will NARF’s Allison Neswood contributing.

Using federal election data from 2020, 2022, and 2024, NARF focuses on 30 counties where Native people constitute at least 25 percent of the population. In those counties, confirmation notices increased 178% and provisional ballot use more than doubled between 202 and 2024. In 2024, 4 in 10 provisional ballots were rejected (down from nearly 2 in 3 in 2020), compared with about one in four nationally.

These barriers operate as a sequence, since a failure at one stage can push a voter into the next stage, where another barrier awaits. Unreliable mail can prevent a voter from receiving a confirmation notice, placing the voter’s registration at risk. That voter may then arrive at the polls and be directed to cast a provisional ballot, which itself carries an elevated risk of rejection.

These aren’t isolated administrative mistakes. They’re a chain of burdens produced by election systems that fail to account for the realities of Indian Country, including unreliable mail, nonstandard addresses, limited broadband, and inadequate polling infrastructure. The system transfers the resulting labor, uncertainty, and risk of error onto Native voters.

NARF’s report shows why fixing one barrier isn’t enough. Native voting access must be addressed as a connected system that affects not only individual voters, but the political power of Native communities to influence decisions that directly affect them.

2026-narf-obstacles-persist-voting-report (1)Download

Job Postings 10/1/26

Angie Sanchez

Associate Attorney

Peebles Bergin Schulte & Robinson LLP; Sacramento, CA

Peebles Bergin Schulte & Robinson LLP – a national law firm dedicated to the representation of Native American tribes and tribally owned enterprises – is seeking a full-time Associate Attorney for its Sacramento, California office.

We are looking for candidates with experience representing Indian tribes, tribal entities, or businesses, or a demonstrated interest in working in Indian Country. The ideal candidate will have experience or a strong interest in economic development, corporate governance, business transactions, or assisting outside general counsel.

Qualifications:

· J.D. from an accredited law school

· Active bar membership in any state (California preferred or willingness to become admitted)

· Strong writing, research, and communication skills

· 2-5 years of relevant legal experience preferred, but all qualified applicants will be considered

Practice Areas May Include:

· Advising tribal governments and tribally owned businesses

· Drafting and negotiating commercial agreements

· Providing outside general counsel services

· Supporting economic development initiatives and regulatory matters

We Offer:

· A collegial and mission-driven work environment

· Competitive salary and benefits

· Opportunity to work on cutting-edge legal matters in Indian law, tribal economic development, and corporate law

· Some travel may be required

To Apply: Please email a cover letter, resume, writing sample, and references to Patrick Bergin at pbergin@ndnlaw.com with the subject line “”Sacramento Associate Attorney Application.”””

Qualifications:

· J.D. from an accredited law school

· Active bar membership in any state (California preferred or willingness to become admitted)

· Strong writing, research, and communication skills

· 2-5 years of relevant legal experience preferred, but all qualified applicants will be considered

Closes: 10/30/2026 https://www.ndnlaw.com/careers

Associate Attorney

Peebles Bergin Schulte & Robinson LLP; Washington, D.C.
Peebles Bergin Schulte & Robinson LLP – a national law firm dedicated to the representation of Native American tribes and tribally owned enterprises – is seeking a full-time Associate Attorney for its Washington, DC office.

We are looking for candidates with experience representing Indian tribes, tribal entities, or businesses, or a demonstrated interest in working in Indian Country. The ideal candidate will have experience or a strong interest in economic development, corporate governance, business transactions, or assisting outside general counsel.

Qualifications:

· J.D. from an accredited law school

· Active bar membership in DC

· Strong writing, research, and communication skills

· 2-5 years of relevant legal experience preferred, but all qualified applicants will be considered

Practice Areas May Include:

· Advising tribal governments and tribally owned businesses

· Drafting and negotiating commercial agreements

· Providing outside general counsel services

· Supporting economic development initiatives and regulatory matters

We Offer:

· A collegial and mission-driven work environment

· Competitive salary and benefits

· Opportunity to work on cutting-edge legal matters in Indian law, tribal economic development, and corporate law

· Some travel may be required

To Apply: Please email a cover letter, resume, writing sample, and references to Patrick Bergin at pbergin@ndnlaw.com with the subject line “”Washington DC Associate Attorney Application.””

Pay: $110,000.00 – $139,349.72 per year

Benefits:

401(k)

401(k) matching

Dental insurance

Flexible spending account

Health insurance

Health savings account

Life insurance

Paid time off

Professional development assistance

Retirement plan

Vision insurance

Qualifications:

· J.D. from an accredited law school

· Active bar membership in DC

· Strong writing, research, and communication skills

· 2-5 years of relevant legal experience preferred, but all qualified applicants will be considered

Practice Areas May Include:

· Advising tribal governments and tribally owned businesses

· Drafting and negotiating commercial agreements

· Providing outside general counsel services

· Supporting economic development initiatives and regulatory matters

Closes: 10/30/2026 https://www.ndnlaw.com/careers

Reservation Attorney

Tulalip Tribes, Tulalip Reservation, WA

The Reservation Attorney works with the Office of Reservation Attorney to provide legal counsel and representation to the Tulalip Tribes government, with a primary focus on the Tulalip Gaming Organization, Tulalip Tribal Federal Corporation, and Quil Ceda Village. This position advises on business, governance, regulatory, and operational matters; represents tribal entities in judicial and administrative proceedings; and supports business relationships and transactions with external partners. The Reservation Attorney must have experience with the unique complexities of tribal enterprises and provide practical, day-to-day legal counsel on all aspects of tribal business operations while protecting Tribal interests and sovereignty.

Five years practicing law

Three years representing Indian tribes

Salary: $175,000-$250,000 Open until filled https://tulaliptribes-nsn.gov/LawAndJustice/LegalReservationAttorney

Assistant Public Defender

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Durant, Oklahoma 

Responsibilities:

Manage assigned caseloads, including interviewing clients, advising them of legal rights and obligations, and investigating cases.

Interview witnesses, law enforcement officers, and expert witnesses.

Prepare cases for court and represent clients in Tribal Court proceedings, including hearings, preliminary hearings, bench trials, and jury trials.

Handle special actions and appeals.

Recommend legislation or policy improvements to strengthen the Office of Public Defender and the Choctaw Nation justice system.

Review indigency determinations and pursue reimbursement of representation costs when appropriate.

Perform duties in accordance with Choctaw Nation law and applicable professional standards.”

Requirements:

Juris Doctor degree from an accredited law school.

Licensed to practice law in a U.S. state.

Experience with criminal, juvenile, and/or deprived case procedures.

Jury trial experience in felony, misdemeanor, and/or deprived custody cases.

Strong judgment, analytical, evaluation, and advocacy skills.

Commitment to learning, understanding, and respecting Choctaw culture, traditions, and the diverse backgrounds of clients.

Salary based on experience, open until 10/31/26 Link to apply: https://egoh.fa.us2.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/CandidateExperience/en/sites/CX_1001/job/31911/?utm_medium=jobshare&utm_source=External+Job+Share

Law Clerk

Zwillinger Wulkan, Phoenix, Arizona

Our Indian Law Practice Group is seeking a part-time Law Clerk to assist attorneys with legal research, analysis, drafting, and case preparation. This position offers an opportunity to gain meaningful experience working on matters involving federal Indian law, tribal law, and tribal courts.
•Current law student in good academic standing.

•Strong legal research, analytical, and writing skills.

•Careful attention to detail and the ability to manage assignments and deadlines.

•Ability to maintain strict confidentiality.

•Interest in federal Indian law, tribal law, or representing tribal governments and entities is preferred.

Open until 12.30.26 Send applicant materials to sophia.rivera@zwfirm.com

Senior Associate Attorney

Dragonfly Law Group, P.C.; Rapid City, SD

Dragonfly Law Group is looking for a Senior Associate Attorney with three to five years of practice experience to join our Rapid City office. This is a general counsel role. You will advise tribal housing authorities, K-12 schools, tribal colleges, and tribal governments on the matters that shape how those institutions operate day to day.

•Three to five years of practice as a licensed attorney

•Experience working with tribes, tribal institutions, and Indigenous organizations is strongly preferred

•Background in one or more of the following core areas: education, housing, contracts, employment and labor, procurement

•Juris Doctor from an accredited law school

•Admission to the South Dakota or North Dakota bar, or eligibility for admission

•Strong research, writing, and analytical skills, and the judgment to know when a question needs escalating

•The ability to run a matter independently and to work well as part of a team

•Willingness and ability to mentor less experienced attorneys

•Cultural competency and genuine respect for the communities we serve

•Commitment to restorative practices with our clients and within our organization

Salary 95,000-130,000 Open until Filled

Email letter of interest, resume, writing sample, law school transcript, to Rebeccak@dflylaw.com

Chief Prosecutor

Mescalero Apache Tribe; Mescalero, NM

Upholds the Mescalero Apache Tribe’s Constitution and Tribal Code to protect the safety and wellbeing of tribal members and public and personal property and resources. Represents the Tribe in criminal complaints and prosecutes individuals accused of violating Tribal laws. Juris Doctor from an accredited law school. License to practice in New Mexico or other State. A member in good standing of New Mexico state bar or other state bar. Five years’ experience as a prosecutor; experience as a prosecutor in a tribal court preferred. One year in a lead or supervisory capacity. 

Salary: $100,110+ Open until 11/30/2026 https://mescaleroapachetribe.com/wp-content/uploads/Chief-Prosecutor.pdf

Tribal Supreme Court Associate Justice

Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi; Fulton, MI

TRIBAL COUNCIL SEEKS LETTERS OF INTEREST FROM PERSONS TO SERVE AS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ON THE NHBP TRIBAL SUPREME COURT. 

The Tribal Council is soliciting letters of interest from qualified individuals interested in being appointed to serve as Associate Justice on the NHBP Supreme 

Court. The individual appointed to this position would be appointed to a six-year term of office expiring on December 31, 2032. Letters of interest must be submitted no later than November 1, 2026, to be considered.   

NHBP Judicial Branch: The NHBP Judiciary is a Constitutional Branch of Government established under Article XI of the Band’s Constitution. The NHBP Court is a court of general jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court hears appeals from the Judiciary’s Trial Court. In addition to hearing appeals, members of the Supreme Court also work with the Trial Court’s Chief Judge and other court staff in the development of Court Rules and Administrative Orders.

Qualifications for Appointment: In accordance with the NHBP Constitution, persons interested in being appointed to the Tribal Judiciary must agree to undergo an extensive background investigation and may be asked to appear before the Tribal Council to answer questions about their qualifications for the position. The qualifications of prospective appointees are determined by the Tribal Council in accordance with the qualifications for office contained in Article XI of the NHBP Constitution which include the following:

• Has attained the age of thirty (30) years; 

• Is a licensed attorney in good standing; 

• Not be an employee of NHBP or presently serving, or a candidate for, a seat on the elected Tribal Council; and 

• Has never been convicted of a violent crime, felony or a crime of fraud. ” Members of the bench are compensated for services at a competitive hourly rate. November 1, 2026

INTERESTED APPLICANTS SHOULD SEND A LETTER OF INTEREST AND STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS (OR RESUME) TO:   

Amy Wesaw – Chief Legal Officer  

1485 Mno-Bmadzewen Way, Fulton, MI 49052  

amy.wesaw@nhbp-nsn.gov

LETTERS OF INTEREST MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 1, 2026

Staff Attorney

California Indian Legal Services, Escondido, CA

Provide legal representation, counsel, and advocacy to Tribal clients and low-income American Indian individuals in a wide range of Federal Indian law matters, including litigation, contract negotiation, tribal governance, employment, natural resources, environmental law, and ICWA-related cases. Represent Tribal clients in state dependency proceedings and other legal actions, while developing constitutions, codes, policies, and educational presentations to support Tribal governments and communities. Build and maintain strong relationships with Tribes, Indian organizations, and other stakeholders to expand services and support funding, grant, and contract opportunities. Collaborate with leadership and colleagues on case management, legal program administration, attorney mentoring, and the development and implementation of grants and special projects.

J.D. and California bar membership in good standing.

Demonstrated knowledge of Federal Indian law with at least 1-3 years of experience practicing law.

Excellent communication, writing, and organizational skills.

Strong work ethic and able to work nights and weekends when many Tribal councils meet.

Ability to travel overnight and a valid driver’s license.

Solid understanding of Native Americans and Tribes in California.

A commitment to providing high-quality legal services for Native Americans.

Ability to work independently, as part of a team, and to take initiative

Salary: $77,435 – $102,132 Open until 2/20/27 https://recruiting.paylocity.com/Recruiting/Jobs/Details/4554176

Staff Attorney/Sr. Staff Attorney

Alaska Native Justice Center; Anchorage, AK

The Staff Attorney/Sr. Staff Attorney provides comprehensive, high-quality legal services to Alaska Native Justice Center (ANJC) clients, working collaboratively with ANJC’s multidisciplinary team of Attorneys, Paralegals, and Tribal Justice Facilitators. This position represents Alaska Tribes in child welfare matters under the Indian Child Welfare Act, provides technical assistance and training to tribal justice systems, and assists and represents Tribes in many other arenas. Working in partnership with our people to develop opportunities that fulfill our endless potential, the Staff Attorney/Sr. Staff Attorney ensures access to justice and protects the rights of Alaska Native communities through direct legal representation and culturally responsive advocacy. At the Senior level, the attorney also mentors staff attorneys and handles the most complex cases with minimal supervision. The role requires strong legal expertise, cultural competency, and dedication to advancing justice for Alaska Native communities.

•Satisfactory state and federal fingerprint-based criminal background check.

•Experience is not required. Training will be provided as needed.

•Juris Doctor or equivalent degree from an accredited law school.

•Active membership in the Alaska Bar Association in good standing.

•Ability to travel to both rural and urban areas as required.

Salary: $84,600-$122,100 Open until 12/25/2026

Please apply on-line:  https://citci.org/citc-jobs/

D.C. Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Interior Reversal on Scotts Valley Gaming Lands

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in in Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):

10-1 Motion for Preliminary InjunctionDownload
21 Federal OppositionDownload
38 California Amicus BriefDownload
39 Lytton Rancheria AmicusDownload
40 United Auburn Community Amicus BriefDownload
42 California Gaming Assn Amicus BriefDownload
43 Reply ISO 10Download
49 DCT OrderDownload

Prior post here [complaint].

Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Committee Review Committee FY2026 Annual Report

Matthew L.M. Fletcher
FY2026 Review Committee Report to Congress_FINAL (9-30-2026)Download

Ninth Circuit Rejects En Banc Rehearing in Challenge to Oak Flat Environmental Review over 11-Judge Dissent

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are new materials in Arizona Mining Reform Coalition v. United States Forest Service + associated cases:

Order Denying Rehearing + Dissents

Arizona Mining Reform En Banc PetitionDownload
Brown Lopez En Banc PetitionDownload
San Carlos Apache En Banc PetitionDownload
Federal Opposition to En Banc PetitionsDownload

Prior post here.

Newsom Vetoes Sacred Sites and Tribal Water Bills Despite Overwhelming Votes

Wenona Singel

Five days after celebrating legislation that formally apologized to California’s Native people and strengthened Tribal consultation, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed two bills that would have made Tribal interests legally consequential when the state acts.

AB 1881, the California Indian Freedom Act, would have established an enforceable religious freedom standard for Native sacred sites on specified state lands. AB 2218 would have required state water agencies to address historical inequities, protect Tribal beneficial uses, consult during certain investigations of claimed water rights, and provide mediation and a temporary pause in state action for some disputes.

Both bills received overwhelming legislative support. The Senate approved AB 1881 by a vote of 29–1, with Senator Roger Niello casting the only no vote, and the Assembly concurred 65–0. AB 2218 passed both chambers without a single no vote, 28–0 in the Senate and 56–0 in the Assembly.

The two vetoes expose the limits of California’s willingness to make its Tribal commitments legally enforceable. The state will apologize, consult, and enter voluntary partnerships with Tribal Nations, but when legislation would constrain the state’s unilateral authority through consent, strict scrutiny, injunctions, mediation, or a temporary stay, Newsom draws the line.

AB 1881 Would Have Rejected a Central Fiction of Sacred Sites Law

Federal law can permit the government to destroy a sacred place, making the religious practices tied to it impossible, without finding that the government has substantially burdened religion.

In Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, the Supreme Court allowed a road and timber project on federal land even though the government’s own study concluded that it could devastate religious practices dependent on the affected landscape. Because the government hadn’t forced Tribal practitioners to violate their beliefs, penalized their religious conduct, or denied them a governmental benefit, the Court found no constitutional violation.

More recently, the Ninth Circuit held in Apache Stronghold v. United States that the federal government could transfer Oak Flat for a mining project expected eventually to destroy the Western Apache sacred site without imposing a substantial burden cognizable under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Supreme Court declined review in 2025. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, arguing that preventing a religious exercise burdens it completely.

AB 1881 would have rejected that narrow understanding of religious injury on the state lands it covered. The bill expressly recognized that denying access to a sacred place, desecrating it, materially altering it, or destroying it can substantially burden Native religious exercise. When the state imposed such a burden, it would have been required to demonstrate that its action furthered a compelling governmental interest through the least restrictive means.

The bill also defined religious exercise to include land- and water-based practices, gathering traditional foods and plants, and practices whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief. Native religions would not have needed to conform to a church-centered model before California law recognized them as religions.

A California Tribe, including a non-federally recognized Tribe, would have had standing to assert a violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding. Remedies would have included declaratory and injunctive relief, equitable remedies, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Bill Had Already Been Narrowed

In his veto message, Newsom said AB 1881 was “overly broad,” would disrupt the state’s ability to manage its lands, and could “delay or halt critical government functions.”

However, the California legislature had already substantially narrowed the bill. It applied only to state agency actions involving land owned by California or a state agency. It didn’t apply to city, county, district, or private land. It excluded land used for public infrastructure or services, land authorized for private use or development, and the State Water Resources Control Board’s authority over water diversion, water use, and water quality. It also protected actions necessary to address imminent threats to public health and safety.

Nor did AB 1881 transfer title, confer general Tribal jurisdiction over public land, or give Tribes an unlimited veto. Before undertaking a project on state land that risked destroying or altering a known sacred site, cutting off access to it, or causing long-term environmental degradation affecting religious practice, a state agency would have been required to seek and document a Tribe’s free, prior, and informed consent. But an agency could treat a failure to respond within a designated reasonable period as consent. If a Tribe objected, the bill provided only that the agency could request consultation. And the statutory text did not clearly provide a separate cause of action to enforce the consent provision.

What remained after the amendments was the bill’s central commitment. Consultation alone is inadequate when the state proposes to damage or destroy a sacred place. At some point, the state should have to justify the harm under an enforceable legal standard.

In practice, Newsom rejected the legislation that would have put that premise into enforceable law. His veto message instead points to consultation requirements, environmental review, repatriation law, agency policies, and Tribal co-management. Those processes may be valuable, but they generally preserve the state’s final authority. Strict scrutiny, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees would have subjected that authority to judicially enforceable limits.

AB 2218 Presented the Same Choice in Water Policy

Newsom’s veto of AB 2218 followed the same pattern.

The bill declared that California water policy should address historical inequities affecting Tribes and protect Tribal beneficial uses of water. It would have required the State Water Resources Control Board, on a Tribe’s request, to consult with that Tribe when investigating a claimed riparian or appropriative right to water within the Tribe’s ancestral territory. It also would have created a mediation process for specified disputes and temporarily stayed some state actions while mediation occurred.

Newsom agreed with the objective of addressing historical inequities and respecting Tribal water rights. He nevertheless concluded that the bill’s “broad scope” could interfere with the Water Board’s existing processes. He said mediation would duplicate administrative review, the temporary stay could impair protection of senior water right holders, and a proposed advisory committee would overlap with existing Tribal engagement structures.

But the supposed duplication was part of the bill’s purpose. Existing processes leave the same agency that initiates an investigation or enforcement action in control of the dispute. Mediation would have created a different forum. A temporary stay would have prevented the state from changing conditions on the ground before that process concluded.

AB 2218 didn’t give Tribes control over California water administration; it would have required the state to slow down and engage differently when Tribal interests in water were at stake. But even that limited restraint was too much for the Governor.

Recognition Without Constraint

On September 25, Newsom signed a package of bills advancing Tribal priorities. The package made Native American Day a paid state holiday for state workers, extended an apology for California’s historic atrocities against Native peoples to the legislature and the courts, made the Governor’s Office of Tribal Affairs permanent, and strengthened statewide consultation structures.

Those actions have value. But yesterday’s vetoes reveal the difference between recognizing Tribes and allowing them to constrain state power.

AB 1881 would have required the state to defend substantial burdens on Native religion under strict scrutiny and would have enabled Tribes to seek injunctions. AB 2218 would have required mediation and temporarily restrained state action in certain water disputes. One bill moved beyond consultation toward consent. The other moved beyond agency review toward a process that could interrupt agency action. Newsom vetoed both.

The contrast is especially stark because AB 1881 directly confronted harms the state’s apology acknowledges. California helped remove Native peoples from their lands, suppress their religions, and place sacred places under state control. AB 1881 recognized that the state’s resulting ownership is not a neutral starting point. It asked California to justify actions that would obstruct or destroy religions that remain inseparable from those places.

Newsom’s veto preserves the opposite arrangement. The state may recognize its history, invite Tribal participation, and voluntarily share aspects of management. But it retains the legal authority to decide when consultation ends and state action begins.

The vetoes need not be the final word. AB 1881 received 65 votes in the Assembly and 29 in the Senate. AB 2218 received 56 and 28. Those totals exceed the two-thirds majorities required to override a veto, although an override would require new votes in both chambers.

Whether legislators will take those votes is another question. California’s legislature hasn’t overridden a governor’s veto since 1979, and both chambers have adjourned for final recess. Legislative leaders would have to bring members back before the session ends on November 30. The question is whether legislators meant what their overwhelming votes appeared to say, or whether their support extended only as far as the Governor was willing to allow.

California has apologized for the historic exercise of unilateral power over Native peoples and their lands. Newsom has now declined to surrender even a limited measure of that power. The Legislature still has the constitutional authority to do otherwise.

N.Y. Federal Court Dismisses Most Claims in Cayuga Challenge to State Liquor License Denial

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Cayuga Nation v. New York State Liquor Authority (N.D. N.Y.):

16 Second Amended Complaint.pdfDownload
17-1 Motion to Dismiss.pdfDownload
20 Opposition.pdfDownload
26 Reply.pdfDownload
28-17 Proposed Amicus Brief of Council of Chiefs and Clan Mothers.pdfDownload
37 DCT Order.pdfDownload

ILPC Orange Shirt Day Book Talk

Wenona Singel

Yesterday, the Indigenous Law & Policy Center at MSU Law marked Orange Shirt Day with a lunch book talk by Sierra Biidaabaan Nadeau on What the Ancestors Say, her investigation into Michigan Indian boarding schools.

Sierra talked about the process of tracing boarding school histories through family, archives, and community, and about what it means to tell these stories in ways that remain accountable to the people whose lives they record.

A photo from the event is below.

Catawba Seeks Repeal of Federal Limit on its Citizenship Requirements

Wenona Singel
Patricia Leach/Catawba Nation: Legislative Hearing on S.1750, S.3859, S.4053 & H.R.226, Sept. 26, 2026. Click on the image above to view the video of Assistant Chief Patricia Leach’s testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.

When Congress settled the Catawba Indian Nation’s land claims in 1993, it imposed federal requirements on who could become a citizen. Specifically, the Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claims Settlement Act of 1993 stated that, “[t]he Tribe shall have the right to determine future membership in the Tribe; however, in no event may an individual be enrolled as a tribal member unless the individual is a lineal descendant of a person on the final base membership roll and has continued to maintain political relations with the Tribe.” (Emphasis added.)

Those requirements helped identify recipients of settlement payments, but the payments ended decades ago, while the federal restriction remained.

Now Catawba is asking Congress to remove it. Assistant Chief Patricia Leach testified that S. 3859 would return citizenship decisions to the Nation’s Constitution and laws. If passed, the bill would strike the clause from the 1993 land claims settlement act limiting enrollment to individuals who are lineal descendants of persons on the final base membership roll and who have continued to maintain political relations with the Tribe.

The larger issue is Tribal power over membership. A federal rule created to distribute settlement money in a land claims settlement act in 1993 became an enduring restriction on Catawba’s power to define its own political community.

A portion of Assistant Chief Patricia Leach’s testimony is here:

What the Bill Does
S. 3859 strikes a portion of a single sentence from Section 7(d) of the Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claims Settlement Act of 1993. That clause currently prevents the Nation from enrolling any new citizen unless that person is a lineal descendant of an individual on the 1962 final roll and has maintained “continued political relations” with the Tribe.
If enacted, the bill would restore to the Catawba Indian Nation the authority to determine its own citizenship criteria under its Constitution. That authority is one of the most basic attributes of tribal sovereignty, respected by the Federal government for virtually all Tribal Nations. The bill does not rewrite the Nation’s Constitution, does not create any new federal program, and does not affect any other provision of the Settlement Act.
Why the Bill Is Needed
Congress enacted the Settlement Act in 1993 to resolve the Nation’s longstanding land claims, restore the federal trust relationship, and provide for a monetary settlement. The federal enrollment language in Section 7(d) was included in that settlement context. It helped identify a fixed number of individuals entitled to share in settlement-related distributions and provided an administrable federal standard at that time.
Those monetary distributions were completed decades ago. The federal restriction has outlived that purpose. Today, it no longer serves as a settlement-administration tool. Instead, it operates as a continuing federal limitation on the Nation’s ability to define its own political community.
The provision also includes the phrase “continued political relations,” a standard that is undefined in the Act and difficult to administer. Tribal staff must determine whether an applicant has demonstrated a sufficient political connection to the Nation, even though that standard is not clearly defined by Congress. Removing this language will allow the Nation to administer citizenship through its own Constitution and laws rather than through an outdated federal overlay.

Action Item: U.S. Census Bureau to hold virtual Tribal Consultation on Oct. 2 on proposed rule that eliminates race and ethnicity questions from decennial census questionnaire

Wenona Singel

The proposed rule would prohibit the collection of data on race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation on the short form decennial questionnaire or any questionnaire used for the enumeration of the population. It would also count only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents for congressional apportionment.

§70.2 Restrictions on the inclusion of certain demographic questions.
(a) No question about race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation shall appear on the short form decennial census questionnaire or any questionnaire used for the enumeration of the population.

The preamble to the proposed rule also refers to “[s]ubstantial doubts about the meaning, significance, and impact of attempting to categorize persons by race and ethnicity” that have “been reflected in shifts in the law.” This statement is supplemented by a footnote 11 that states:

11 Questions about tribal membership are not necessarily questions about race and/or ethnicity. See Constitutionality of Race-Based Department of Education Programs, 49 Op. O.L.C. ll(Dec. 2, 2025), available at https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1421576/dl (‘‘Current equal-protection doctrine recognizes a difference between preferences based on Indian ethnicity and those based on affiliation (often membership or citizenship) in a federally recognized tribe.’’); Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551–55 (1974) (discussing the ‘‘unique legal status of Indian tribes’’ and explaining how certain preferences for members of Indian tribes are not the same as preferences for discrete racial groups).

The proposed rule doesn’t say whether a tribal affiliation question could survive the proposed §70.2, but it’s worth addressing in comments to the agency.

If adopted, the proposed rule would make Native people less visible in federal data, making redistricting analysis and voting rights enforcement more difficult. It would also cause Tribes to have less reliable demographic data for purposes of federal trust and treaty obligations and self-government, and it would make it more difficult for Tribes to plan for housing, health care, schools, transportation, language services, and emergencies.

Relevant Dates

Virtual Tribal Consultation on October 2, 2026 from 3:00 – 4:30 pm ET. Tribal leaders and representatives can register here. Note: The Bureau only gave two weeks’ notice for this consultation instead of its standard 30 days.

Public Comment Period deadline: October 13, 2026. Comments can be submitted here

Extended Tribal Comment Period deadline: November 2, 2026.

Additional resources

Proposed Rule: Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions

Dear Tribal Leader Letter

What Proposed 2030 Census Changes Could Mean for Native Communities, NARF, Sept. 29, 2026