S. 1925

Opposition Letter to Title IX of VAWA Reauthorization from Federal Defenders (and Commentary)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

NACDL and NAFD VAWA Letter 4 23 12

I find it odd that there’s such a heavy reliance on the testimony from the 1960s in the years leading to the passage of the Indian Civil Rights Act in this letter. Barbara Creel’s work is much more formidable and persuasive, probably because it’s not such a direct assault on all tribal courts using such broad (and now largely inaccurate) generalizations. Later this week, I’ll be presenting a paper about the 1977-79 NAICJA study on tribal courts where David Getches pointed out the direct analogy between tribal and rural justices systems — that analogy is still present, with all its plusses and minuses. I am persuaded that that’s a much more direct analysis (see also here). Most tribal courts aren’t going to be like federal courts; neither are magistrates and JOPs in rural New York or Iowa or Arizona.

Tova Indritz’s efforts to criticize the Tribal Law and Order Act a few years back are in this hearing:

TLO House Judiciary Hearing (Dec 2009)

Informational Handouts on Tribal Govt. Provisions of VAWA Reauthorization

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

VAWA protections for suspects of abuse (04-17-12)

VAWA Combat DV Locally

Letter from Law Professors: “Constitutionality of Tribal Government Provisions in VAWA Reauthorization”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

VAWA Letter from Law Professors – Tribal Provisions

VAWA Reauthorization Bill Close to Senate Floor Vote

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the Congressional report that accompanies the bill —

VAWA S 1925 Report

Update on VAWA Reauthorization & Tribal Jurisdiction — Crunch Time

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments
Here is  some of the latest information on Congress’ efforts to Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).  The VAWA Reauthorization, S. 1925, includes provisions that would restore tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians for purposes of domestic and dating violence.  S. 1925 currently has 58 co-sponsors, including all 51 Ds, 2 Independents, and Republican Senators Crapo, Kirk, Murkowski, Collins, and Scott Brown.  Senator Reid has indicated that he will bring the bill to the floor with 60 co-sponsors. Timing wise, it looks like mid-April, if there are 60.  
As we noted on Turtle Talk in early February, Senator Grassley voiced his opposition to the tribal jurisdictional provisions.  With S. 1925 close to Senate floor consideration, a small group of Republicans are pressuring Rs on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and those Rs that have co-sponsored the bill–including Senators Crapo, Murkowski, Hoeven, Johanns, McCain, and Barrasso–to oppose the tribal provisions.  Specifically, they are working to strip the tribal jurisdiction provisions in Sections 904 and 905 before permitting the bill to move forward.
We are told this group is attempting to racialize the issue, by attacking the credibility of tribal courts, lack of protections to non-Indian suspects of abuse, and the suspected non-Indian abusers’ voting rights in tribal elections.  Several other arguments are being raised, including: Congress doesn’t have the authority (despite Lara); flooding federal courts with habeas petitions; among others.
This group of senate offices are working behind the scenes. Now is the time for tribal attorneys, judges, and others to push to bring this historic legislation to the Senate floor, and to reach final passage in the Senate with the tribal provisions (Title IX) fully intact.