The case is Lanphere v. Wright (CA9, no decision yet), and is a part of Paul Matheson’s ongoing efforts to avoid tribal, state, and federal law (here and here).
Here are the materials in this case:
The case is Lanphere v. Wright (CA9, no decision yet), and is a part of Paul Matheson’s ongoing efforts to avoid tribal, state, and federal law (here and here).
Here are the materials in this case:
From the Navajo Times via Pechanga:
The reapportionment map representing the plan approved Friday.
Download a large-format PDF version of the map. (2.1 MB, requires Adobe Reader.)
* * *
The Navajo Board of Election Supervisors approved on Friday a reapportionment plan dividing the Navajo Nation into 24 voting districts for a new, reduced tribal council election.
The board also voted to extend the filing deadline for council delegate candidates by one business day, to 5 p.m. Monday, June 14. This will give candidates at least a little time to acquaint themselves with the new apportionment plan, the board said.
“This is good,” said President Joe Shirley Jr., who presented the plan approved by the board. “This is something we should have done a long time ago. We are moving along and progressing.”
The board unanimously approved both measures.
But recognizes that the tribal government could enact legislation to prohibit such hot pursuits.
Here is the opinion in State v. Harrison: New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion.
Greg Rubio published “Reclaiming Indian Civil Rights: The Application of International Human Rights Law to Tribal Disenrollment Actions” in the Oregon Review of International Law.
An excerpt:
A more detailed description of this Article’s warp and woof is in order. Part I highlights the substance and nature of the injury that forms the basis for potential international human rights claims. It describes the history and background of the Cherokee Freedmen, details the events of their disenrollment by the Cherokee tribe, and briefly considers the stakes that attend Indian membership determinations in the present political and economic context. Part II examines the body of domestic law under which an Indian plaintiff might normally seek redress: federal Indian law. This critical section concludes that through the current ascendancy of tribal sovereignty and self-determination in federal and congressional policy and the strict application of the common law doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity in federal courts, federal Indian law as presently constituted leaves the Cherokee Freedmen without any domestic remedy for the allegedly racially discriminatory action. Part III then turns to a discussion of two potentially applicable provisions of international human rights law. After describing the present status of indigenous peoples under international human rights law, Part III considers the two provisions, detailing how the disenrollment action implicates each. This Part finally outlines the relevant characteristics necessary to hold the United States accountable for the tribal disenrollment action under its international human rights obligations. After describing how the United States might find itself answering in an international forum for the allegedly discriminatory acts of the Cherokee, Part IV ponders the potential ramifications of this reality for Indian tribes and for the federal government. This Part suggests that these conclusions may imply a potential shift in the present status of federal Indian policy and portend a new and sober dimension in the ongoing dialogue over that most familiar ground in federal Indian law: the reach of tribal sovereignty.
“Race and American Indian Tribal Nationhood” is available for download here. [The paper is there now, sorry.]
Here is the abstract:
Modern American Indian nations face a racial paradox. On one hand, the citizenry of Indian nations is almost exclusively based in race, ethnicity, and ancestry. Indian nations would not be “Indian” without this basis. But American constitutional principles dictate that laws based on racial, ethnic, or ancestral classifications are highly disfavored. For Indian nations, this means that Indian governments have virtually no authority to regulate the activities of the non-Indian citizens that live amongst Indian communities. This paper offers a long-term solution to this conundrum, a solution that requires Indian nations and American courts and policymakers to modernize understandings about American Indian tribal nationhood. American Indian law and policy forced Indian nations into a legal status akin to “domestic racial nations.” By tweaking Indian citizenship requirements, and recognizing the national character of modern Indian nations, modern Indian nations should more properly be understood as simply “domestic nations,” much like Monaco and The Vatican.
Constructive feedback welcome.
Here are these opinions:
Here are three competing press releases from various branches of Navajo government (two of three, as Paul notes below):
Navajo Judiciary Committee on Court Reform
Here it is: CLC0110
And here is news coverage of President Shirley’s announcement he’s running for a third term by relying on Dine Fundamental Law.
University of Michigan NALSA
2010 Indian Law Day Schedule
Looking Inward: Tribal Governance
Blessing
1:00 – 1:10
Joseph Brave-Heart
Keynote Speaker
1:10 -1:40
Frank Ettawageshik
Former Tribal Chairman, Little Traverse Bay
Bands of Odawa Indians
Tribal Constitutions
1:45 – 2:25
Allie Maldonado, Assistant General Counsel,
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians
Mike Phelan, Office of the General Counsel
Pokagon Band Potawatomi Indians
Tribal Courts
2:30 – 3:10
Prof. Matthew Fletcher, Michigan State University College of Law
Amy Kullenberg, Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians
Break/Refreshments
3:10 – 3:25
Tribal Economic Diversification
3:25 – 4:05
Zeke Fletcher, Associate, Rosette & Associates
Prof. Matthew Fletcher, Michigan State University College of Law
You must be logged in to post a comment.