SAVE Native Women Act – Page 3

Additional VAWA Reauthorization Materials

May 16, 2012May 16, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the Administration’s policy statement on the VAWA reauthorization, largely opposition to the House version.

And here is the House Judiciary Committee Report on the H.R. 4970, VAWA Reauthorization (HRPT-112-HR4970cj). According to the Report, “The justification for why these [tribal] provisions are necessary is also questionable. Proponents of these provisions tout unverifiable statistics about the rate of non-Indian violence against Indian women on Indian land…”

VAWA Reauthorization Bill to be Considered by Rules Committee Today at 5PM

May 15, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the House Bill:

BILLS-112-HR4970RH

H.R. 4970, the VAWA reauthorization bill will be considered by the Rules Committee today at 5pm. The hearing can be viewed at: http://rules.house.gov/Legislation/hearings_details.aspx?NewsID=834

Instead of the three tribal provisions in S. 1925 that would:

Provide Indian tribes criminal jurisdiction over domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of protective orders that occur on Indian lands;
Provide Indian courts civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce protection orders. Excludes Indian courts in Alaska from that jurisdiction, except with respect to the Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Islands Reserve.
Amend the federal criminal code to increase the maximum federal penalties for assault convictions.

H.R. 4970 (above) instead includes section 905 that authorizes and encourages the Attorney General to appoint U.S. Attorney Tribal Liaisons in each judicial district that includes Indian Country to serve a domestic violence tribal liaison. The duties of the tribal liaison include:

Encouraging and assisting in arrests and Federal prosecution for crimes, including misdemeanor crimes, of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking that occur in Indian country.
Conducting training sessions for tribal law enforcement officers and other individuals and entities responsible for responding to crimes in Indian country to ensure that such officers, individuals, and entities understand their arrest authority over non-Indian offenders.
Developing multidisciplinary teams to combat domestic and sexual violence offenses against Indians by non-Indians.
Consulting and coordinating with tribal justice officials and victims’ advocates to address any backlog in the prosecution of crimes, including misdemeanor crimes, of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking that occur in Indian country.
Developing working relationships and maintaining communication with tribal leaders, tribal community and victims’ advocates, and tribal justice officials to gather information from, and share appropriate information with, tribal justice officials.

Eid/Heffelfinger Letter to the House re: VAWA Reauthorization

May 1, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

VAWA 4.30.12 Support Ltr

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

April 25, 2012Matthew 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

April 23, 2012Matthew 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”

April 23, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

VAWA Letter from Law Professors – Tribal Provisions

VAWA Reauthorization Bill Close to Senate Floor Vote

April 13, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the Congressional report that accompanies the bill —

VAWA S 1925 Report

Troy Eid and Thomas Heffelfinger Letter Supporting VAWA Reauthorization

March 13, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

VAWAR Letter

Update on VAWA Reauthorization & Tribal Jurisdiction — Crunch Time

March 12, 2012March 12, 2012Matthew 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.