Here.
The CRS report at issue is here.
The law professor letter (spearheaded by Sarah Deer) is here.
VAWA Reauthorization
Caroline Mayhew in ICT on “VAWA Tribal Provisions and Race Discrimination Arguments”
Here.
An excerpt:
Interestingly, the prospect of enhanced tribal jurisdiction over non-members has raised the issue of racial discrimination in varied and even competing ways. Two recent statements by members of Congress, both of whom have been important allies in tribal law enforcement efforts including the enactment of the Tribal Law and Order Act, illustrate this point. Following passage of the Senate bill, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona released a statement claiming that “by subjecting individuals to the criminal jurisdiction of a government from which they are excluded on account of race,” the tribal jurisdiction provision “would quite plainly violate the Constitution’s guarantees of Equal Protection and Due Process.” Then, during the House Judiciary Committee’s markup of a bill that did not contain the tribal jurisdiction provisions, Representative Darrell Issa of California stated that the lack of such a provision raised questions of race discrimination, since whether an individual will be brought to tribal, state, or federal court for a domestic violence offense under current law depends on whether the defendant is Indian or non-Indian.
While seemingly in opposition to each other, neither one of these statements accurately reflects the current legal and political reality of Indian tribes. Instead, they illustrate how easy it can be for us to slip into a widely employed discourse of race that is not always helpful or relevant in the realm of Indian law and policy. Unfortunately, this mistake can obscure the role that racial discrimination is actually playing in the VAWA reauthorization debate.
House Barely Passes VAWA Reauthorization (without Tribal jurisdiction provisions)
Here.
Additional VAWA Reauthorization Materials
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
Here is the House Bill:
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.
VAWA’s Tribal Provisions Better Protect Native Women Locally
On May 8th, the House Judiciary Committee marked up and passed H.R. 4970, a stripped-down Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) that excludes a number of key provisions found in the Senate bill, including those bearing on the safety of Native women and communities. Get informed! Visit www.indianlaw.org for more information on how to get involved.
The full House of Representatives is expected to vote on its VAWA reauthorization bill soon — as early as mid week.
Eid/Heffelfinger Letter to the House re: VAWA Reauthorization
Here:
VAWA Passes Senate without Republican Changes
Here.
Additional coverage:
Indian Country Today
Washington Post
NY Times
Statement of Sen. Akaka
Press Release from NCAI
A personal favorite–Fem 2.0
“After all my reading I’m still loss as to why Republicans do not trust tribal courts.”
Opposition Letter to Title IX of VAWA Reauthorization from Federal Defenders (and Commentary)
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:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.