Michigan Indian – Page 45

Michigan Court of Appeals Finds Law Adding Wolves to List of Game Species Unconstitutional

November 28, 2016November 27, 2016Kate Fort

The unpublished opinion is here. The Court found that Public Act 281 (which added wolves to the list of game species) violated the Title-Object Clause of the Michigan Constitution.

PA 281 was passed with the provision that kept portions of certain voter referendums even if voters rejected them: “In other words, even if voters rejected PA 520 and PA 21 at the general election, those portions of the rejected laws that were incorporated into PA 281 would nevertheless survive. … At the November 4, 2014 general election, a majority of voters rejected both PA 520 and PA 21. PA 281, which reenacted portions of voter-rejected PA 520 and PA 21, including the addition of wolf to the list of game species, took effect on March 31, 2015.”

Previous coverage here.

Dispute Resolution Center of Washtenaw County Video on Peacemaking

Video November 17, 2016Sarah M Donnelly

Links: previous post, DRC website.

Final Review of Washtenaw County’s Peacemaking Court Initiative

November 14, 2016Sarah M Donnelly1 Comment

Download(PDF):

An Evaluation of the Peacemaking and Parent Partners Initiative: An Initiative of the Washtenaw County Trial Court and Dispute Resolution Center of Washtenaw County

Exit Pursued by a Bear: Why Peacemaking Makes Sense in State Court Justice Systems by Judge Timothy Connors

Michigan’s Tribal State Federal Judicial Forum: Attempting Great things by Justice Bridget McCormack

The Indigenous Practice that is Transforming the Adversarial Process by Neil Nesheim

Nottawaseppi Huron Potawatomi Supreme Court Posting

November 8, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

TRIBAL COUNCIL SEEKS LETTERS OF INTEREST FROM PERSONS TO SERVE AS CHIEF JUSTICE ON THE NHBP TRIBAL SUPREME COURT. The Tribal Council is soliciting letters of interest from qualified individuals interested in being appointed to serve on the NHBP Supreme Court. The individual appointed to this position would be appointed to a six (6) year term of office expiring on December 31, 2022. Letters of interest must be submitted no later than November 25, 2016 to be considered. Interested applicants should send a letter of interest and statement of qualifications (or resume) to: Jamie P. Stuck, Tribal Council Chairperson, 1485 Mno-Bmadzewen Way, Fulton, Michigan 49052.

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 his/her 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. In accordance with the NHBP Constitution, “the amount of [compensation] shall not be reduced during such person’s term of office”. Justices are also reimbursed for reasonable expenses including travel to and from Michigan.

Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell Cert Petition

October 26, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Cert Petition

Questions presented:

Whether the Court of Appeals deviated from this Court’s decision in Carcieri v Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009) which held that the Secretary of Interior’s Federal Acknowledgment Process (FAP) established in 25 C.F.R. Part 83 is not determinative as to whether Indian Tribe is “recognized” for the purposes of the Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. § 479)?

Whether the Secretary of Interior can avoid performing her mandatory non-discretionary duty under the Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. § 476) to call elections to ratify tribal constitutional documents within a reasonable time by requiring a tribe to exhaust administrative remedies estimated to require 30 years to complete?

Lower court materials here.

Kirsten Carlson on Lobbying Congress for Federal Recognition of Indian Tribes

October 14, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kirsten Matoy Carlson has posted “Why Lobby Congress? Constitutive and Instrumental Influences on Indian Groups’ Strategies for Federal Recognition, 1977-2012” on SSRN. This paper is highly recommended.

Here is the abstract:

When and why do marginalized groups chose a particular institutional venue when pursuing their legal claims? This article combines theoretical and methodological insights from sociolegal and interest group studies to investigate why non-federally recognized Indian groups used legislative strategies for federal recognition from 1977 to 2012. It finds Indian groups employed legislative strategies both to increase their chances of success and for constitutive purposes, including educating the public and leveraging institutional tensions. The article’s emphasis on constitutive and instrumental motivations provides a more nuanced approach to understanding marginalized groups’ venue decisions.