Posted by [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 15:50:14 -0800 From: "Victor Rocha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: IdahoTribes want end to state oversight Tribes want end to state oversight Betsy Z. Russell - Staff writer http://www.spokane.net/news-story.asp?date=112799&ID=s712412&cat=section.Tribal_news Idaho took jurisdiction over the state's five recognized Indian tribes for certain functions back in 1963, at the tail end of a since-abandoned national movement to terminate tribes. Now, one southern Idaho tribe wants those responsibilities back through a process called "retrocession," and North Idaho tribes also are mulling the move. Former Idaho Attorney General Larry EchoHawk said Idaho's state Constitution makes it clear that the state doesn't have jurisdiction over tribes, so the 1960s move into civil and criminal jurisdiction over tribes may never have been constitutional. "I can see a lawsuit possible with regard to that," he told lawmakers and tribal leaders last week. "I'm not here to threaten that today." EchoHawk, representing the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, helped argue for the Sho-Bans' retrocession bill during last year's legislative session. The measure passed the Senate, but then lawmakers voted to reconsider their approval, and killed the bill. In some ways, the move recalled the Legislature's action back in 1963, when tribal leaders traveled to Boise to oppose the state's attempt to take jurisdiction over tribes. "Initially the statute failed," EchoHawk said. "The tribal leaders were pleased with the vote, and they left town. Then, there was a motion for reconsideration, and it passed." Tribal leaders didn't learn until later that the state was moving into governing them over their objections. Idaho claimed concurrent jurisdiction, meaning it shared authority with the tribes, over seven areas: compulsory school attendance; juvenile delinquency; dependent, neglected or abused children; mental illness; public assistance; domestic relations; and vehicle operation on county or state-maintained roads. Idaho potentially could save lots of money by turning all of those functions over to tribes, EchoHawk said. But in many of those areas, federal agencies like the Indian Health Service or the tribes themselves already are providing the services, rather than the state. Two of Idaho's tribes, the Nez Perce and the Sho-Bans, already operate their own welfare programs, using federal block grant funds that the state passes through to them. Most tribes also maintain their own police forces and court systems. "I think most of us probably have the same thought, we'd like to retrocede," said Ernie Stensgar, chairman of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe. The Coeur d'Alenes might not be quite ready for the move yet, he said. "There are a couple of areas we need to bolster our services, and then we'd be able to provide those. And we want to do that," he said. Velma Bahe, chairman of the Kootenai Tribe, said learning about the issue was an eye-opener for her. In most cases, her small tribe has been the one providing or paying for services for its members, not the state, she said. "We've always taken the responsibility. We've already been providing it for our own people." The move of states into jurisdiction over tribes came under a federal law known as Public Law 280, which passed in 1953 at a time when Congress was attempting to terminate recognition of tribes. Over the next decade, 109 of the 557 federally recognized tribes were terminated, although many later were restored. None of Idaho's five recognized tribes was terminated. Public Law 280 encouraged states to assume jurisdiction over tribes by legislative action, and didn't require the tribes' consent. But those moves and the push to terminate tribes both fell into disfavor in the mid- and late 1960s. In 1968, Public Law 280 was amended to require voter approval from tribal membership before jurisdiction could be transferred; no tribe has ever voted for that. The 1968 changes also allowed states to give back the jurisdiction they had taken, through a process called retrocession. The 1968 law was called the Indian Civil Rights Act. In 1970, then-President Richard Nixon urged Congress to adopt a new strategy of self-determination for tribes, and that approach has been the federal standard ever since. Since the Indian Civil Rights Act passed, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Montana have all agreed to return jurisdiction to tribes in their states that have requested it. The Sho-Bans, as Idaho's largest tribe, have a sophisticated governmental structure and social service agencies at their Fort Hall Reservation, and are ready to have full jurisdiction there, EchoHawk said. Sen. Moon Wheeler, R-American Falls, whose district includes the reservation, chairs the state's new Indian Affairs Council, which brings together legislators and tribal leaders. Wheeler said, "There's a lot of misinformation and disinformation out there, but that's something this council can try to overcome, hopefully." He added, "I know I've had phone calls from citizens in my district who are operating under a lot of misconceptions about what would occur should retrocession pass." The jurisdiction involved is only over tribal members, EchoHawk stressed. Betsy Z. Russell can be reached at 336-2854, or by e-mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reprinted under the Fair Use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international copyright law. <><<<<<>>>>><><<<<> Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ <><<<<<>>>>><><<<<>
