Here:
Text of CARERS Act Bill
Here:
Legislation
Maine Tribes seek authority to exercise VAWA ’13 jurisdiction
Because of the Maine Settlement Act of 1980, state law would have to change to facilitate tribal authority, and a bill has been introduced. Here’s the news article.
Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act Signed
Here are materials from the tribe:
New Scholarship on Impacts of Excepting Alaska Natives from Federal Indian Law
Here is Samuel Gottstein’s “An Era Of Continued Neglect: Assessing the Impact of Congressional Exemptions for Alaska Natives,” published in the Boston College Law Review.
The abstract:
Although Native Americans in the contiguous United States have benefited from recent congressional reforms, Alaska Native communities were largely ignored. Despite the widely acknowledged crisis of sexual assault and domestic violence in rural Alaska Native communities, Congress has explicitly exempted Alaska from legislation that would otherwise give people in these communities the ability to protect themselves. Although public outcry has prompted pending legislation in Congress to repeal some of these exemptions, such as the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act, even that legislation does not go far enough to achieve a permanent and effective solution to what is a life-or-death problem for many Alaska Natives. This Note argues that Congress and the State of Alaska should expand Alaska Native tribal sovereignty to give Alaska Native communities the ability to stem the tide of this epidemic.
Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act Passed by Congress
Ho Chunk job posting for legislative attorney
This just in from Ho Chunk: jobpostingreport_8-20-14 atty.
California Legislature Enacts Tribal Court Civil Money Judgment Act
Here:
SB-104 CA Tribal Court Civil Money Judgement Act 08-22-2014
From the digest:
The existing Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act provides that foreign judgments that grant or deny recovery of a sum of money and that are final and conclusive are enforceable in California, with specified exceptions. The act includes within the definition of “foreign-country judgment” a judgment by any Indian tribe recognized by the government of the United States.
This bill would, until January 1, 2018, exempt Indian tribal judgments from the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, and would instead enact the Tribal Court Civil Money Judgment Act. The new act would likewise provide for the enforceability of tribal court money judgments in California, except as specified. The act would prescribe the procedure for applying for recognition and entry of a judgment based on a tribal court money judgment, the procedure and grounds for objecting to the entry of judgment, and the bases upon which the court may refuse to enter the judgment or grant a stay of enforcement. The bill would require the Judicial Council to prescribe a form for the notice of filing the application for recognition of the tribal court money judgment, as specified. The bill would require that this application be executed under penalty of perjury, which would expand the scope of the crime of perjury and thus impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the California Law Revision Commission to conduct a study of the standards for recognition of a tribal court or a foreign court judgment under the Tribal Court Civil Money Judgment Act and the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, and submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor no later than January 1, 2017.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for
a specified reason.
Ann Tweedy on Tribal Laws & Same-Sex Marriage
Our own Ann Tweedy has posted her very interesting and relevant paper, “Tribal Laws & Same-Sex Marriage: Theory, Process, and Content,” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
In 1996, Congress, in enacting the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), took the somewhat surprising step of explicitly including tribes within its purview. The legislative history is silent as to the decision to explicitly include tribes, and, at the time of DOMA’s passage, it does not appear that any tribe was seriously examining the issue. Since then, however, there have been many developments among tribes on this issue, including enactment of laws permitting same-sex marriage and enactment of prohibitions on same-sex marriage. Nonetheless, generally speaking, the issue does not seem to be a priority among tribes to the same extent it is a priority for states and the federal government.
In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the DOMA, which concerns the federal definition of marriage, as a violation of equal protection and due process. In doing so, it left the constitutionality of section 2, which pertains to tribes’ and states’ recognition of out-of-jurisdiction marriages, uncertain.
This article presents the post-DOMA developments in tribal law as to same-sex marriage, explaining the different tribal approaches to the issue, and then examines the processes by which tribal laws on same-sex marriage, particularly those explicitly permitting same-sex marriage, have been enacted. Finally, this article examines the possible effects that United States v. Windsor will likely have on tribal laws and suggests that tribal courts apply Windsor as persuasive authority under the Indian Civil Rights Act unless there is significant historical evidence as to a lack of openness to same-sex relationships or LGBT identities within that particular tribe. Finally, it discusses the reasons that laws on same-sex marriage may be less of a priority for tribes than for the other sovereigns in the United States. This article is the only comprehensive examination of tribal same-sex marriage laws since the issue gained serious momentum among tribes in 2011 and 2012, and it is the first to address the potential effects of Windsor on Indian tribes.
Additional Written Testimony from Indian Law and Order Commission to SCIA
DOJ to consult with tribes on possible voting rights legislation
The DOJ is considering recommending that Congress pass legislation requiring state and local election administrators whose districts include Indian or Alaska Native lands to allow tribes to designate at least one polling place. Consultations are to begin shortly. It seems to me that such legislation would be very helpful in reducing the barriers to voting for Native persons who live on reservations and in similar communities.
The official notice is here: DOJ Consultation Announcement–Voting Rights (1). More information can also be found on the website for the Office of Tribal Justice.
You must be logged in to post a comment.