Wisconsin Oneidas

Who Won American Indian Law and Policy 2014? Third Round Bracket 1 of 2

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Now it’s getting tight. We’re down to the last 16.

Category 1 — Indian nations

#1 Alaska Native tribes v. #12 Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin

Alaska Native tribes once again won handily, earning 86 percent of the votes over the Omaha Tribe. The Wisconsin Oneidas continue to surprise, knocking off the Cayugas and their impressive Second Circuit tax victory with two-thirds of the vote.

Interesting matchup here, with two contenders that had a big year facing off against state and local governments.

#7 Gun Lake Tribe v.#3 Bay Mills Indian Community

Enrollment numbers don’t matter! The Gun Lakers earn 61 percent of the vote and take out the Sault Tribe and its vast membership. It can’t be that there’s no internet in the UP, right?

Well, the internet worked for Bay Mills, winning by one vote over LCO and the Wisconsin treaty tribes. Bay Mills makes a living winning by one vote.

So another ‘Nish matchup. Will Gun Lake be able to get past another Upper Peninsula Chippewa community?

Category 2 — Laws, Doctrines, and the Like

#1 Indian Child Welfare Act v. #5 Intra-tribal disputes

In the battle for Indian civil rights, nonvoters prevailed over voters, and ICWA moves on with 57 percent of the vote. Maybe that TT post on South Dakota came a day too late.

Well, intra-tribal disputes took down Indian gaming, with 58 percent of the vote. I hope that won’t be true in real life.

#2 Tribal sovereign immunity v. #3 VAWA

With 72 percent of the vote, it turns out sovereignty does predate knowledge of sovereignty. Cool, I guess.

VAWA and the hopes it encourages for tribal governance in the future (as well as its 67 percent vote tally) easily defeated tribal court exhaustion, which wilted with fatigue near the end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

News Coverage of Wisconsin Oneida Proposal to Expand Tribal Court Jurisdiction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Green Bay Press Gazette, via Pechanga:

A legislative proposal to revamp the Oneida judicial system and define its authority is part of a larger trend among Native American tribes across the country to establish their own law enforcement and judicial systems.

* * *

The authority and jurisdiction of modern tribal courts is complex.

Wisconsin is one of six states where a 1953 federal measure called Public Law 280 gave criminal jurisdiction over tribal areas to the states from the federal government, and also allowed state courts jurisdiction over civil matters on reservations.

The law was a product of the termination era — a period in the 1950s and ’60s when the federal government severed relationships with many tribes, said Matthew Fletcher, a professor and director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center at Michigan State University.

However, Congress didn’t appropriate any money to these states to increase the law enforcement necessary to enforce the jurisdiction, leading local officials to often ignore problems on reservations, Fletcher said.

When federal Native American policy shifted toward self-determination, giving tribes more control over their governance, tribes began developing their own law enforcement systems and courts. As they did, questions arose about jurisdiction.

Continue reading →