Book Announcement: Kirsty Gover’s “Tribal Constitutionalism”

Oxford University Press will publish Kirsty Gover’s “Tribal Constitutionalism: States, Tribes and the Governance of Membership” in December.

Here is the blurb:

Recognised tribes are increasingly prominent players in settler state governance, but in the wide-ranging debates about tribal self-governance, little has been said about tribal self-constitution.

Who are the members of tribes, and how are they chosen? Tribes in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States are now obliged to adopt written constitutions as a condition of recognition, and to specify the criteria used to select members. This book presents findings from a comparative study of nearly eight hundred current and historic tribal constitutions, most of which are not in the public domain.

Kirsty Gover examines the strategies adopted by tribes and states to deal with the new legal distinction between indigenous people (defined by settler governments) and tribal members (defined by tribal governments). She highlights the important fact that the two categories are imperfectly aligned. Many indigenous persons are not tribal members, and some tribal members are not legally indigenous. Should legal indigenous status be limited to persons enrolled in recognized tribes? What is to be done about the large and growing proportion of indigenous peoples who are not enrolled in a tribe, and do not live near their tribal territories? This book approaches these complex questions head-on.

Using tribal membership criteria as a starting point, this book provides a critical analysis of current political and sociolegal theories of tribalism and indigeneity, and draws on legal doctrine, policy, demographic data and tribal practice to provide a comparative evaluation of tribal membership governance in the western settler states.

Recent Saginaw Chippewa Appellate Court Decisions on Tribal Membership

Interesting and important cases:

Ayling v Tribal Certifiers

Tappen v Tribal Certifiers

News Article on Saginaw Chippewa Membership Dispute in Tribal Court

From the Mt. Pleasant Morning Sun, via Pechanga:

Mt. Pleasant attorney Paula Fisher says she is pleased with her victory in Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Appellate Court on Aug. 16.

The Tribe’s Court of Appeals reversed the decisions of past Tribal Councils, the Tribe’s Office of Administrative Hearings and the Tribe’s Community Court said Fisher.

“The Tribe had previously taken the position it would not honor its own Tribal blood quantum certifications,” said Fisher, attorney for Tappen and Ayling. “That resulted in Tribal applicants who were born to Tribal members who had at least one half degree Indian blood quantum, not being allowed to use their parents to prove their members (eligibility).

“The Tribe has taken the position for the last several years that one half of one half does not equal one quarter.”

Chief Judge Kevin K. Washburn, Associate Judges Robert Kittecon, and Dennis Peterson issued an opinion and an order that would allow Dennis Tappen, Angela Ayling and Skykur Graveratte “due process rights” with their applications for Tribal enrollment.

Continue reading

Fletcher on “Race and American Indian Tribal Nationhood” — UPDATED

“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.

New Scholarship on Gaming and Tribal Membership

Suzianne Painter-Thorne has published “If You Build It, They Will Come: Preserving Tribal Sovereignty in the Face of Indian Casinos and the New Face of Tribal Membership” in the Lewis & Clark Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

This Article considers recent disputes over membership decisions made by American Indian tribal governments. Since Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, Indian casinos have flourished on some tribal reservations. Some argue that the new wealth brought by casinos has increased fights over membership as tribes seek to expel current members or refuse to admit new members. It is difficult to discern whether there are more disputes over tribal enrollment as a consequence of gaming or whether such disputes are now more public because gaming has brought tribes to the forefront of U.S. culture. What is clear is that enrollment disputes are receiving increased attention, resulting in calls for some change to address what many perceive as a fundamental unfairness in tribal decision making.

Aggrieved members’ attempts to resort to federal or state court are blocked due to a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, standing, and because of the tribes’ sovereign immunity. Activists and courts have sought to change this, seeking to curtail the tribes’ sovereign immunity, expand federal court jurisdiction to permit oversight, or otherwise impose U.S. law on tribal membership decisions. Scholars are divided, with some arguing for the abrogation of immunity or sovereignty, while others argue that the tribes’ decisions are sacrosanct. Still others argue over how the tribes should define membership–contending that it should be based on cultural identity, political participation, blood quantity, or even DNA.

This Article argues that the focus should instead be on solutions that come from within the tribes. For too long the tribes have suffered from the imposition of legal and cultural norms that do not reflect their identity or culture. Because a tribe’s right to define its membership lies at the heart of its sovereignty, the solution is more, not less, sovereignty for the tribes. To remedy the impasse, I propose that tribes create separate independent judicial bodies, or an intertribal appellate court that would provide independent review of tribal membership decisions.

California Court of Appeals Allows Adopted Indian Woman to Prove Ancestry

Here is an interesting case captioned Wynn v. Superior Court (opinion here). From the opinion:

Karen Victoria Dahlberg Wynn (appellant) filed a petition in the superior court seeking an order correcting her original birth certificate to state the actual names of her birth parents rather than the fictitious names her mother used when the original certificate was prepared. Appellant’s situation is unusual because her original birth certificate is sealed and her legally operative birth certificate lists her adoptive parents.

The superior court denied the petition on the ground that it lacked the legal authority to modify the original, sealed birth certificate because a subsequent certificate was in effect.

We conclude appellant qualifies as an interested person who may bring an action to adjudicate her parentage and, therefore, the superior court had the authority to adjudicate the facts concerning a possible biological relationship between mother and daughter. Furthermore, if the superior court determines appellant’s original birth certificate is not accurate regarding her parentage, then it must order the issuance of a new birth certificate.

No Jurisdiction in Suit against Feds over Choctaw Membership

Here is the opinion in Greene v. Skibine (E.D. Cal.) in which the federal court dismissed the complaint sua sponte — Greene v Skibine DCT Order

Greene has made many efforts to gain membership in the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.

Saginaw Chippewa Disenrollment News Coverage

From Indianz:

The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan plans to remove people who don’t meet its membership criteria.

It’s unclear how many people will be affected though prior news stories have said up to 125 adults could be removed. A spokesperson said the tribal council has been concerned about the issue for some time. The tribe will spend the next month to determine how many people to remove.

Get the Story:
Tribe disenrolling members (Central Michigan Life 4/15) Related Stories:
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe mum on disenrollment (3/27)

Dollar Douglas v. Dry Creek — Enrollment Dispute

Here are the materials in this enrollment-related case:

report-and-recommendations-dollar-douglas

dct-order-adopting-report-and-recommendations-dollar-douglas

Hendrix v. Coffee — Comanche Membership Dispute

Here are the materials in this case, dismissed on the basis that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

hendrix-complaint

comanche-motion-to-dismiss

hendrix-brief

hendrix-v-coffee-dct-opinion