Legislation

Native American Mascots Banned in Oregon Public Schools

Adrea Korthase

First part of the article from the Oregonian:

The Oregon Board of Education voted Thursday afternoon to ban Native American mascots in schools across the state. The policy, which represents one of the toughest stances on the issue nationwide, was passed on a vote of 5-1.

“There’s a collective right that exists here,” said board member Artemio Paz. These sorts of mascots produce “racism and unnecessary bullying. We do not allow that to exist for any of our populations.”

All told it will affect at least 15 Oregon schools. Some schools will have to change both their mascots and their nicknames. Others, who call themselves “warriors,” will be allowed to keep their names but must change their mascots. The schools will have to make the changes by July 2017 or risk losing state funding.

Previous post is here.

House Barely Passes VAWA Reauthorization (without Tribal jurisdiction provisions)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here.

HEARTH Act Update

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The HEARTH Act passed the House 400 to zero on May 15. Here is NCAI’s description:

The HEARTH Act (H.R. 205 and S. 703) has been favorably considered in committee in both the Senate and the House, and we urge the Administration to work with Congress to pass the legislation as soon as possible. The HEARTH Act promotes tribal self-determination in the management of tribal lands and would allow tribes to lease their own lands without the delay and bureaucracy of approval within the BIA. The legislation is also optional; each tribe would decide for itself whether or not to take advantage of the Act. Many tribes desire to manage their own lands and to promote economic development, and they are in the best position to decide for themselves whether this Act suits their needs. The Act expands the Navajo Leasing Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-568) to all federally recognized tribes.

Additional VAWA Reauthorization Materials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the Administration’s policy statement on the VAWA reauthorization, largely opposition to the House version.

And here is the House Judiciary Committee Report on the H.R. 4970, VAWA Reauthorization (HRPT-112-HR4970cj).  According to the Report, “The justification for why these [tribal] provisions are necessary is also questionable. Proponents of these provisions tout unverifiable statistics about the rate of non-Indian violence against Indian women on Indian land…”

VAWA Reauthorization Bill to be Considered by Rules Committee Today at 5PM

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the House Bill:

BILLS-112-HR4970RH

H.R. 4970, the VAWA reauthorization bill will be considered by the Rules Committee today at 5pm.  The hearing can be viewed at: http://rules.house.gov/Legislation/hearings_details.aspx?NewsID=834

Instead of the three tribal provisions in S. 1925 that would:

  • Provide Indian tribes criminal jurisdiction over domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of protective orders that occur on Indian lands;
  • Provide Indian courts civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce protection orders. Excludes Indian courts in Alaska from that jurisdiction, except with respect to the Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Islands Reserve.
  • Amend the federal criminal code to increase the maximum federal penalties for assault convictions.

H.R. 4970 (above) instead includes section 905 that authorizes and encourages the Attorney General to appoint U.S. Attorney Tribal Liaisons in each judicial district that includes Indian Country to serve a domestic violence tribal liaison.  The duties of the tribal liaison include:

  • Encouraging and assisting in arrests and Federal prosecution for crimes, including misdemeanor crimes, of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking that occur in Indian country.
  • Conducting training sessions for tribal law enforcement officers and other individuals and entities responsible for responding to crimes in Indian country to ensure that such officers, individuals, and entities understand their arrest authority over non-Indian offenders.
  • Developing multidisciplinary teams to combat domestic and sexual violence offenses against Indians by non-Indians.
  • Consulting and coordinating with tribal justice officials and victims’ advocates to address any backlog in the prosecution of crimes, including misdemeanor crimes, of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking that occur in Indian country.
  • Developing working relationships and maintaining communication with tribal leaders, tribal community and victims’ advocates, and tribal justice officials to gather information from, and share appropriate information with, tribal justice officials.

VAWA’s Tribal Provisions Better Protect Native Women Locally

Kirsten Matoy Carlson1 Comment

On May 8th, the House Judiciary Committee marked up and passed H.R. 4970, a stripped-down Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) that excludes a number of key provisions found in the Senate bill, including those bearing on the safety of Native women and communities. Get informed! Visit www.indianlaw.org for more information on how to get involved.

The full House of Representatives is expected to vote on its VAWA reauthorization bill soon — as early as mid week.

KG Urban Reply Brief in First Circuit Appeal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

KG Urban Reply Brief

Michigan SCT Decides In re Morris and In re Gordon; Adopts “Conditional Reversal” Rule for ICWA Notice Violations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here

An excerpt from Justice Cavanagh’s unanimous opinion:

While it is impossible to articulate a precise rule that will encompass every possible factual situation, in light of the interests protected by ICWA, the potentially high costs of erroneously concluding that notice need not be sent, and the relatively low burden of erring in favor of requiring notice, we think the standard for triggering the notice requirement of 25 USC 1912(a) must be a cautionary one. Therefore, we hold first that sufficiently reliable information of virtually any criteria on which tribal membership might be based suffices to trigger the notice requirement. We hold also that a parent of an Indian child cannot waive the separate and independent ICWA rights of an Indian child’s tribe and that the trial court must maintain a documentary record including, at minimum, (1) the original or a copy of each actual notice personally served or sent via registered mail pursuant to 25 USC 1912(a) and (2) the original or a legible copy of the return receipt or other proof of service showing delivery of the notice.1 Finally, we hold that the proper remedy for an ICWA-notice violation is to conditionally reverse the trial court and remand for resolution of the ICWA-notice issue.

Briefs are here and here.

Eid/Heffelfinger Letter to the House re: VAWA Reauthorization

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

VAWA 4.30.12 Support Ltr