Here:
VAWA Letter from Law Professors – Tribal Provisions
VAWA Reauthorization
VAWA Reauthorization Bill Close to Senate Floor Vote
Here is the Congressional report that accompanies the bill —
NYTs Coverage of the Politics of the VAWA Reauthorization
Here. An excerpt or two:
Democrats, confident they have the political upper hand with women, insist that Republican opposition falls into a larger picture of insensitivity toward women that has progressed from abortion fights to contraception to preventive health care coverage — and now to domestic violence.
“I am furious,” said Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington. “We’re mad, and we’re tired of it.”
And:
The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence.
Troy Eid and Thomas Heffelfinger Letter Supporting VAWA Reauthorization
Here:
Update on VAWA Reauthorization & Tribal Jurisdiction — Crunch Time
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.
Senate Judiciary Committee Passes VAWA Reauthorization; Sen. Grassley Opposes Tribal Sovereignty
Strict party line vote.
Sen. Grassley’s opposition to tribal sovereignty is reproduced here:
I’ll turn now to some of the provisions that I cannot support. For instance, S.1925 states that it recognizes the “inherent power” of Indian tribes “which is hereby recognized and affirmed, to exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over all persons.” Now I believe in the importance of federal responsibility for law enforcement and social services for Indian tribes. And I believe in tribal self-government. But as we meet here today, there is no inherent power of tribes to do anything of the sort the bill says. Self-government is not government over “all persons” – including non-Indians.
Because tribes lack this power, it’s untrue to say that Congress can recognize and affirm it. And if we do, I don’t know what effect such language will have on current law enforcement arrangements. After all, the bill goes much further than changing something for the future. It says that something exists that does not now exist.
For the first time, the Committee would extend tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. I do not believe the Committee has a good understanding of what the consequences would be of doing so. This was put in the bill. Like the other provisions to which I object, it was not the subject of any hearing.Why would Congress, should it decide for the first time to make such a change, do so on a bill to reauthorize VAWA? Why should domestic violence cases be the first criminal cases to be treated in this way? What precedent would be created that might lead to other prosecutions of non-Indians in tribal courts? The bill’s expansion of the civil jurisdiction of tribal courts over non-Indians also needs more thought.
Well, the good news is that the opposition is on record. And now we know the opposition is explicitly racializing the problem of domestic violence in Indian country. In other words, Sen. Grassley would do nothing about DV offenders in Indian country who are non-Indian. I suspect he is tough on crime in every other instance, except where a non-Indian in Indian country commits a crime (or where the victim is gay).
Turtle Talk 