Here is the text.
Here is a section by section summary.
Bipartisan Bill to Reauthorize VAWA (with SAVE Native Women Act)
Here is the text.
Here is a section by section summary.
Legislation
MSU Indigenous Law and Policy Center Statement on TLOA to the Indian Law and Order Commission
Here. A snippet:
Boozhoo!
To the Honorable Troy A. Eid, Chairman of the Indian Law and Order Commission, and Jeff Davis, Executive Director of the Commission, and the rest of Commission members, we offer greetings and a chi-miigwetch for the opportunity to offer our views on the Tribal Law and Order Act (the Act or TLOA), Pub. L. 111-211, Title II, July 29, 2010, 124 Stat. 2263, and the future of Indian country criminal law and jurisdiction.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, our 8th Annual Indigenous Law and Policy Conference, held on October 28-29, 2011 in East Lansing, MI, was titled, “Beyond the Tribal Law and Order Act: Can (Should) Congress Enact an Oliphant Fix?” We invited a wide segment of speakers, including members of the Indian Law and Order Commission, federal government officials, tribal court and elected government officials, and American Indian law scholars to discuss the ongoing issues with the Tribal Law and Order Act and Indian country criminal law and jurisdiction. Much of our commentary here is guided by the knowledgeable, profound, and wise statements and opinions expressed in that conference.
Indian Law Resource Center Video: “To the Indigenous Woman”
From the ILRC:
Please visit our website at www.indianlaw.org and share our new video, “To the Indigenous Woman,” which is intended to raise awareness and help end violence against Native women. If you click on the Take Action button, you will also find our first video, “Three Little Indians,” released about two weeks ago, along with oither resources and live testimony from our recent thematic hearing on violence against Native women before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Ryan Red Corn (Osage), with the help of the 1491s, developed the videos for us.
As you may know, on Thursday, November 10, 2011, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on S. 1763, the SAVE Native Women Act, recently introduced by Chairman Akaka. The hearing will be viewable by live webcast at http://indian.senate.gov/hearings/.
Thank you.
Jana
Jana L. Walker
Indian Law Resource Center
Sen. Akaka and Rep. Cole on Carcieri Fix: “Create Jobs, Cost Taxpayers Nothing”
Here. An excerpt:
In the Carcieri v. Salazar decision, the Supreme Court reversed 75 years of policy and practice. The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 authorized the secretary of the Interior to take lands into trust for federally recognized tribes. The court threw all tribes into a tailspin of uncertainty by ruling that the secretary did not have the authority to take land into trust for tribes that were not considered “under federal jurisdiction” when the IRA was enacted. The court did not define “under federal jurisdiction,” and in 1934 there wasn’t an official list of federally recognized tribes. The decision creates two classes of tribes: those that can have land in trust and those that cannot. Such a system promises to be both chaotic and unfair.
So much land has been taken from tribes and tribal members — it is unconscionable to make it harder for tribes to gain back their traditional lands. Congress enacted the IRA to protect tribal homelands and to restore land that was previously seized from the native peoples. It is the responsibility of Congress to act when its intentions are misconstrued by the courts, and so we must act now.
And here (hope it is readable):
Written Testimony on SAVE Native Women Act in Yesterday’s SCIA Hearing
Here is the link to the hearing site.
Here are the relevant witnesses:
Panel # 2
Mr. Tom Perrelli
Associate Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC
Panel # 3
Ms. Suzanne Koepplinger
Executive Director
Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource Center, Minneapolis, MN
Mr. Thomas B. Heffelfinger
Attorney
Best & Flanagan LLP, Minneapolis, MN
- No testimony yet.
Full Text of SAVE Native Women Act
M. Brent Leonhard on an Oliphant Fix
M. Brent Leonhard has posted his paper, “Closing a Gap in Indian Country Justice: Oliphant, Lara, and DOJ’s Proposed Fix,” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
This paper analyzes whether DOJ’s proposed legislative fix to allow tribes to prosecute limited non-Indian domestic violence crimes is legally permissible by closely analyzing the decisions in Oliphant and Lara. Given the closely circumscribed requirements for the exercise of such power, and past decisions of various justices, this article concludes that it is within Congress’ power to recognize the inherent power of tribes to prosecute non-Indians for domestic violence crimes against Indians.
Brent Leonhard on PL 280 Retrocession in Washington State
M. Brent Leonhard has posted his paper, “Returning Washington PL 280 Jurisdiction to its Original Consent-Based Grounds,” on SSRN . It is forthcoming in the Gonzaga Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
When enacted in 1953, President Eisenhower expressed “grave doubts” about provisions of Public Law 83-280 (PL 280) that allowed a state to assert jurisdiction over Indian country without tribal consent. Consistent with President Eisenhower’s doubts, the State of Washington enacted legislation in 1957 to assert PL 280 jurisdiction over Indian country provided a tribe requested the State exercise such power. However, in 1963 the State amended its law and baldly asserted limited PL 280 jurisdiction over all of Indian country regardless of tribal consent. Five years later, recognizing the inappropriateness of non-consensual assertions of state authority over tribes, the federal government amended PL 280 in 1968 to require tribal consent and to create a path for retrocession of state authority. Despite changes in federal law, the State of Washington has never acted to rectify its assertion non-consensual authority over tribal nations.
In the 2011 Washington legislative session a joint executive-legislative workgroup on tribal retrocession was formed to study the desirability of enacting a law that would require the State to retrocede PL 280 jurisdiction back to the federal government when specifically requested by an affected tribe. This paper advocates for such changes in Washington’s law, which would effectively return the law to its original consent-based grounds. In doing so, it explains how Indian country criminal jurisdiction would work with such changes, how it currently works under PL 280 generally and Washington specifically, and why a mandatory retrocession provision ought to be adopted for both moral and pragmatic reasons.
Sen. Akaka Introduces SAVE Native Women Act
SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA INTRODUCES BILL TO PROTECT NATIVE WOMEN AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT
The Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women (SAVE Native Women) Act would empower Tribes to prosecute violent crimes and improve prevention programs
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee Chairman Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) today introduced S.1763, the Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women (SAVE Native Women) Act. The bill would provide Indian Country with jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit crimes on Indian lands, improve the Native programs under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and improve data gathering programs to better understand and respond to sex trafficking of Native women.
Senators Al Franken (D-Minnesota), Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Patty Murray (D-Washington), TimJohnson (D-South Dakota), Jeff Bingaman (D- New Mexico), Jon Tester (D-Montana) and Max Baucus (D-Montana) are cosponsors of the bill.
“According to a study by the Department of Justice, two-in-five women in Native communities will suffer domestic violence, and one-in-three will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. To make matters worse, four out of five perpetrators of these crimes are non-Indian, and cannot be prosecuted by tribal governments. This has contributed to a growing sense of lawlessness on Indian reservations and a perpetuation of victimization of Native women,” said Senator Akaka.
“American Indian women suffer disproportionately from domestic violence and sexual assault, and the Violence Against Women Act must be updated to more effectively address their unique needs,” said Senator Franken.
“This legislation works to ensure services are available to survivors of assault in native communities, repair a fragmented criminal justice system, and give tribes more power to prosecute those who are committing such heinous crimes against women,” said Senator Udall.
“By strengthening tribal jurisdiction we are empowering our Native communities with the tools they need to fight back against instances of violence,” said Senator Begich.
“We cannot let the next generation of young Native women grow up as their mothers have-in unbearable situations that threaten their security, stability, and even their lives,” said Senator Akaka.
“With the introduction of this legislation, the sponsors are sending a clear message that Congress intends to build on the incredible momentum of VAWA to ensure that the epidemic of violence against Native women will end in our lifetime,” said Sarah Deer, Amnesty International’s Native American and Alaska Native Advisory Council Member.
“Senator Akaka’s SAVE Native Women Act has the potential to restore safety and justice for American Indian and Alaska Native women. It offers American Indian tribes the opportunity to increase life-saving protections for women living within tribal jurisdiction,” said Terri Henry, Co-chair of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) Task Force on Violence Against Women.
“This is an epidemic. It is unacceptable. And, we must stand against it,” said Senator Akaka. “I am committed to working with the co-sponsors, tribal leaders, NCAI and others who diligently work to protect at-risk Native women, to pass this much needed legislation.”
Senator Akaka’s floor statement introducing the bill today is available here:
http://akaka.senate.gov/statements-and-speeches.cfm?method=releases.view&id=28f371bf-c01f-4ea5-a42b-72359ea839e7
Audio file of Senator Akaka’s comments are available here:
http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/akaka/103111_AKAKA_1_RADIO.mp3
The Political Economy of the Carcieri Fix
Last week’s hearing on the ongoing question of whether Congress will “fix” the Supreme Court’s Carcieri decision was a different take than earlier hearings, but still completely ignores the elephant in the room.
The first hearings were naked pleas to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision on the grounds that the decision was just plain incorrect. The increased complexity of administration of fee to trust acquisitions for tribes possibly affected by Carcieri and Interior was the backdrop there. Now it is jobs and economic development, truly important factors.
But what was missing, and what likely guarantees there will never be a Carcieri fix, was the big gaming tribes. It is the big gaming tribes that divide Indian country on this question, and even though there are only a dozen, maybe two, in question … and they have an effective veto on a Carcieri fix.
Forget Rhode Island’s concern about having their ridiculously expensive Supreme Court victory stripped away, or some Senators’ concerns about “reservation shopping.” Senators views can be changed, especially when political expediency requires it. But the powerful Indian gaming tribes’ interests are economic. So the hearings are incomplete at best, and maybe a sham at worst, because the real interests can stay quiet on the record.
Intertribal gaming revenue sharing anyone? But even that might not be enough.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.