After 184 years, Cherokees seek House delegate seat promised in treaty

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/184-years-cherokees-seek-house-delegate-seat-promised-treaty

by new_guy • 7 years ago

359 143 7 years ago

Back when the treaty signed, Native Americans did not have the right to vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_civil_rights#V...) thus a delegate would have been the only way for Native Americans to have a voice in Congress. This is the same with the other delegates, who all represent places that do not otherwise have representation in Congress.

Now Native Americans all have the right to vote, and thus have a voice in Congress.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

gscott• 7 years ago

Many tribal lands don't have street addresses and in some states you have to have a residence with an address to vote.

Rebelgecko• 7 years ago

Still? IIRC North Dakota tried to make that the law but it was struck down.

dillondoyle2• 7 years ago

Yes this was an issue in a race I worked last cycle in Montana. Deliberately hostile SOS to benefit Rs

devicetray0• 7 years ago

Is there a reason why they don't have a street address in 2019? Do they not want them or is it funding or something else?

daveslash• 7 years ago

IIRC, this "need to have an address" is something that had adversely affected some nomadic people Inuits of Nunavut, Canada. I guess that many of them were, more or less, forced to adopt permanent residences and it destroyed their nomadic way of life. It's something that had never occurred to me until a read an article on it. I'm sure the problem is more pervasive that I know.

shaneprrlt2• 7 years ago

All I have to say to this is a deal's a deal. Doesn't matter if it was 184 years ago. :)

unchocked• 7 years ago

The Civil War happened subsequently, in which many Cherokee fought for the Confederacy. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 72 allows the President to declare treaties abrogated by tribes engaging in "actual hostility to the United States", which alliance with the Confederacy certainly was.

So the issue is more complicated than you state.

* addendum since this is likely flame bait. The Cherokee, having been betrayed by Andrew Jackson and by the United States in general, had plenty of reason to support the confederacy. Have a look at Wikipedia for a historical overview:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_in_the_American_Civil...

egdod• 7 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)

dsfyu404ed• 7 years ago

All I have to say to this is a deal's a deal. Doesn't matter if it was 184 years ago.

It doesn't work like that when you make a deal with the government. Just ask a native American if you don't believe me. :)

NotSammyHagar• 7 years ago

They theoretically have a right to vote. Stop making laws that disenfranchise them, then you can consider changing the deal. But we made a deal. Plus the us has never stood up to it's side of deals with native americans.

enjoyyourlife• 7 years ago

According to https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state-and-regional/citing-tr... the delegate might not be able to vote

Jtsummers• 7 years ago

There's no "might not be able to vote", they would not be able to vote, the position is a non-voting delegate.

Bluestrike2• 7 years ago

Delegates do, however, have floor privileges, the right to sit on committees and vote with them, and the right to vote on legislation. Under the current House rules for the 116th Congress, delegates can also vote with the Committee of the Whole,[0] though if theirs is the deciding vote on a measure, a new vote takes place without them. For the past few decades, that privilege--such as it is--gets restored or removed depending on which party controls the House. In spite of their non-voting status, delegates do have at least some power and influence in the House that can be leveraged on behalf of their constituents.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_the_Whole_(United...

protomyth• 7 years ago

I would imagine that Carpenter v. Murphy might end up being a bit of an indicator on which way this will end up getting litigated.

alteria2• 7 years ago

You beat me to it! Carpenter is a very interesting case that I was following last term.

If you're unfamiliar, the case is about the disputed abolishment of certain reservations in Oklahoma. If the court rules that the reservations were never actually abolished, among other things, a large portion of Oklahoma would actually be on reservation lands.

beerandt3• 7 years ago

This is the Roberts court; regardless of who wins, the ruling will be, IMHO, an extremely narrow one. Don't expect any land titles to change hands.

techntoke• 7 years ago

What is up with all the Native American casinos?

jcranmer2• 7 years ago

To summarize, the various Native American reservations are generally regarded as having tribal law apply to them instead of state law, which means that they are generally exempt from state regulations. If states don't permit gambling within their borders, a reservation providing the gambling instead tends to be an easy way for the reservation to make money, since they have no nearby casinos to compete with.

hart_russell• 7 years ago

I'm no bleeding heart SJW, but holy hell do the native people deserve some type of representation in our govt. The atrocities committed against them were unconscionable.

rjkennedy98• 7 years ago

Yeah, I'm all for it. If anyone can out-victimize our entitled political factions, its the Native Americans.

danharaj• 7 years ago

Which factions do you have in mind?

chadlavi• 7 years ago

I don't think this comment needs any qualification

tathougies20• 7 years ago

Actually, we need to do one of two things:

(1) Treat the natives like any other citizen, so no special land reservations etc, or

(2) Grant them completely separate sovereign nation status and end this ridiculous quasi-sovereign state of affairs we find ourselves in. No person deserves special rights or recognition because their grandfather (or grandmother) was of a certain race. That is antithetical to a free society. The easy solution here is to cede all land back to them, and establish proper international relations.

Understandably, natives want their own land. That's great, but they can't get that if there's another government in their way. Understandably, states want full sovereignty over their own land, but they can't get that if there exist quasi-nations in the way. The obvious solution is to allow them actual self governance.

bdamm• 7 years ago

That viewpoint is needlessly absolutist. There's obviously no way that native nations could even afford to negotiate with the US Federal Government. That was true 184 years ago, and it's still true now. At the same time these people do deserve special treatment, being the subjects of systemic oppression that continues to this very day. If we really believe that native Americans are valuable as native Americans (and I think that they are) then we need to provide governance structure that can work for them.

It's yet more evidence, as if more was needed, that the idea of a "melting pot" is fundamentally the wrong way to think about multiculturalism.

lalaithion• 7 years ago

If we ceded all land back to them, the United States would cease to exist, having no land left.

mcdramamean• 7 years ago

And yet....MOST Americans are against reparations for Slavery....

Consultant32452• 7 years ago

My suggestion is enough out of the box that many people will think I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. This is a great idea. I think we should give out House seats to other groups who have been historically disadvantaged. Maybe we could have a few House members that only blacks get to vote for. It might be harder to identify LGBT people, but they could get one too as far as I'm concerned. It could be time limited, like maybe for 50 years or something. But it could fit under the reparations umbrella in a way that might be more tasteful to voters than just cutting a check to people.

kej4• 7 years ago

You kind of get this "for free" with some forms of proportional representation. If any group (geographic, ethnic, religious, whatever) feels unrepresented, there is an opportunity for a party to win seats representing that group's interests.

maxlybbert• 7 years ago

In “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,” one of the main characters tries to slow down the process of writing a constitution by giving the delegates too many choices. He starts by disparaging the most normal way of giving out representatives, with a statement along the lines of “surely where a man lives is the least interesting thing about him.” He then suggests, for instance, that trade unions be allowed to choose representatives.

I don’t think it’s actually workable, but I have to admit that Heinlein has a point: if you ask me to say something about myself, I never start with “I live in X neighborhood.” Why is my House district based on where I live instead of something more relevant?

The answer, of course, is that geographic representation is easy to understand and administer. But it also influences the kind of proposals my representative is willing to support or oppose. There are plenty of issues that I care about but my neighbors don’t, and my representative has no incentive to take a stand on those things.

trhway• 7 years ago

what you suggest is probably close to the party based voting/elections/representation in Europe countries. Whenever there is a significant interest group they could/would form a party, like Pirate Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party_(Sweden) or Green Party for example while the majority of people is just covered by the typical couple of the Pepsi/Coca parties.

mcthrowaway123z• 7 years ago

Perhaps we should just grant statehood to the various Indian nations so they may be formally admitted into this republic. I am not a fan of giving representation to alien nations. I'm not sure our courts have legal jurisdiction over such agreements so long as they are extra-national, so there may be no way to enforce it.

gatherhunterer• 7 years ago

Are you referring to the Cherokee Nation as alien, meaning that the US is the native nation? How warped a world view one must have to say something like that with no sense of irony.

nothal• 7 years ago

I believe OP is referring to how Indian nations are governed and the laws that apply to them. They're outside the scope of US law (so they're alien). The word choice is ironic historically but it's not incorrect and it further isn't as though OP was implying natives are not legitimately native.

hirundo• 7 years ago

alien, noun: a person of another family, race or nation.

You seem to be criticizing it in the sense of "exotic", which is a fairly hostile reading.

ALittleLight• 7 years ago

I think alien and native are orthogonal terms. If we landed on an inhabited planet we would call those inhabitants aliens, not to imply that their planet is our native land, but to state that they are different than us. In the same way, the parent comment refers to a nation different from the US as an alien nation.

I don't think "alien" is the most common way to refer to foreign nations, but it's not wrong or rude to my knowledge. Your comment seems uncharitable and insulting though.

tathougies20• 7 years ago

Are you claiming that the Cherokee nation is subject to the US government? That's arguing in favor of a form of colonialism. It is your worldview that is warped. The Cherokee (and any other native nation wanting their land back) are best served by granting them status as fully sovereign individual nations, as alien to the United States as the United Kingdom and Canada. Can you imagine if we tried to impose our law on Canada? Why then should we allow other nations which ought to enjoy sovereignty to remain subject to the United States?

If, after being recognized as a separate nation by the United States, they would like to seek entrance to the Union as a separate state, then they can petition Congress for that right, as any other sovereign nation is allowed to do.

Excel_Wizard• 7 years ago

It's ironic but it's not untrue.

The connotation of alien used here is something that is foreign, unfamiliar, or culturally distinct to a person or nation. Nativeness isn't relevant.

solidsnack9000• 7 years ago

They have said it better as "giving representation to other nations". It is less usual to grant other nations representation in the house and senate, but the Native American tribes are not exactly independent nations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21275381

pnw_hazor2• 7 years ago

Not sure how that would work. Nevertheless, I would be really surprised if recognized Tribes would voluntarily give up their sovereignty to become a state.

beerandt3• 7 years ago

Because in a sense of practical power, state sovereignty comprises most of the benefits of tribal sovereignty.

At that point you ask if the differences in sovereignty are worth 2 votes in the Senate and (at least) 1 in the House. I'd argue yes.

jcranmer2• 7 years ago

The modern state of Oklahoma was effectively the dumping ground for all of the Indian nations that were forcibly relocated, predominantly the "Five Civilized Tribes" of the Southeast who were forced out by Andrew Jackson. From 1889 to 1895, the unassigned territories, and later "unused" lands previously allotted to the relocated Indians, were given out to settlers in a series of land runs, and the involved lands were collected into an Oklahoma Territory.

In response to these pressures, the Indian Territory then attempted to turn their territory into a full state (Sequoyah), but this was turned down by Congress, which wanted the Oklahoma and Indian Territories merged into a single state instead. I believe this was motivated by political concerns, but this isn't an area of history I know very well.

It should also be noted that many of the actions the US government took during this time with respect to the Native Americans were flagrantly in violation of laws and treaties that existed, too. Any treaty the US government made with the natives were not worth the paper they were written on.

propter_hoc• 7 years ago

This is fascinating. Good for them in researching their historical rights. I hope they succeed - it will only help Congress to have their views represented.

tathougies20• 7 years ago

We need to end special treatment under the law for any race, white or red or whatever. No race should get special treatment in the United States. This country should welcome immigrants. If they don't want to be part of it, we should allow them to leave peacefully. That is the most sensible policy.

gourabmi• 7 years ago

" First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out

         Because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out
         Because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
         Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.

tathougies20• 7 years ago

I'm not sure how this is a response to my comment. If Hitler's response to the "Jewish problem" was to put the Jews into their own sovereign nation, then I don't think we would have had a Holocaust. But, yeah, I mean Goodwin's law and all.

mjevans• 7 years ago

You've made three distinct points which might have been better offered split up:

We need to end special treatment under the law for any race, white or red or whatever. No race should get special treatment in the United States.

While I prefer the phrasing "Nobody should get special treatment." I think most agree with this.

This country should welcome immigrants.

I think many agree with this; however in the historical context we're all immigrants here. The Cherokees having crossed some land/sea bridge much longer ago, and Europeans and others arriving within the last 600 years. Also, defining which country you're talking about is crucial. I'm assuming you mean The United States, but a 'Cherokee nation' exists/existed too.

If they don't want to be part of it, we should allow them to leave peacefully. That is the most sensible policy.

Leave for where, also Re: my paragraph above, didn't the sea-bound settlers arrive and take over the park they were living in?

tathougies20• 7 years ago

I'm assuming you mean The United States, but a 'Cherokee nation' exists/existed too.

So I actually mean the Cherokee nation. Their platform of excluding non-Cherokee from the nation is akin to the white supremacists of America not wanting non-whites to live in America. If the nation ends up getting its freedom (as I think they should), that sovereign state ought to be accepting of migrants, as the current government of the United States ought to be as well.

Leave for where, also Re: my paragraph above, didn't the sea-bound settlers arrive and take over the park they were living in?

As espoused elsewhere, I am proposing that the currently defined indian reservations (with their boundaries set by treaty with the United States) be given the opportunity to leave the Union, and form independent sovereign states. I am not asking anyone to physically 'move', by ship, or car, or plane. I am referring to a figurative leaving -- letting the land leave the sovereignty of the United States and its member states.

javagram2• 7 years ago

Native American tribes in the USA are arguably not based on race, but on citizenship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Indians_in_the_United_St...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_freedmen_controversy

tathougies20• 7 years ago

Tribal membership is typically based on ancestry which is a code word for race.

ogou• 7 years ago

Here is a photo of the Cherokee Nation capital building, preserved at New Echota, Georgia. https://joshuacurry.com/american-way/cherokee-capitol-new-ec... This was once the epicenter of the Cherokee government which organized to trade with the colonies. It was taken by a group of 20 non-natives who signed the treaty of New Echota without native consent and enforced by Andrew Jackson. This particular action began the "Trail of Tears". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_New_Echota

hurrdurr23• 7 years ago

I haven't been to the Cherokee reservation, but have been to a couple of reservations for smaller tribes.

They were universally sad/depressing places. Usually they have one central liquor store/"market" with drunk people hanging out in front. Dirty and dilapidated buildings...lots of natives suffering from diabetes and obesity.

What this country did and continues to do to the natives contrasts sharply with how we preach "human rights" and such to the rest of the world.

my_usernam3• 7 years ago

and continues to do to the natives

What is it that we are doing now (other than inflammatory sport team names)? I'm pretty naive on this topic, so I don't mean this as an attack, but as a legitimate question.

Frondo• 7 years ago

I feel like someone else can do a better job with a comprehensive list, but I can give an anecdote from my experience.

A few years ago I sat in on a tribal economic development forum in one of the western states. Not a tribal member, just an invited guest.

One of the issues one of the tribes had was: they don't have water rights to the water that supplies one of their towns. The water comes from their land, but they're required by a 1920s-era local ordinance to sell it to a neighboring town, that then sells it back to them. They want that local ordinance removed, so they aren't paying the neighboring town for, literally, their own water.

The neighboring town isn't filtering it, isn't processing it, it's just enjoying the largesse of some local politician nearly a hundred years ago, writing a law that rips off the tribe.

They just want the ordinance removed. They just want to have their water at extraction cost.

This was one 15-minute section in a day-long conference. This was the "rapid fire" petitions to representatives from state government.

Next section: In a city somewhere else in the state, someone's building a police station. The contract is out for public bid, but the contracting language said "Bidders must reside in our county, with zip codes xxxx, yyyy, zzzz excluded from bidding." The excluded zip codes corresponded exactly to where the reservation land lay.

The tribe was there, asking for the contracting language to be changed, so that they could merely submit a bid for one of their construction companies -- not that they wanted any special treatment, but they literally just wanted to be treated like any other zip code in the county.

That was another 15 minute section in the rapid-fire requests.

All day long like that.

markdown• 7 years ago

Neglect.

hurrdurr23• 7 years ago

The federal government continues to horribly mismanage reservation lands and the resources located on them.

"Tribes historically had little or no control over their energy resources. Royalties were set by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but the agency consistently undervalued Indian resources. A federal commission concluded in 1977 that leases negotiated on behalf of Indians were 'among the poorest agreements ever made.'

Unfortunately, it hasn’t gotten much better. A recent class action suit alleged that the government mismanaged billions of dollars in Indian assets. The case settled in 2009 for $3.4 billion—far less than what was lost by the feds."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/13/5-ways-the-...

xtian• 7 years ago

Check out Days of Destruction by Chris Hedges. One chapter is focused on the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota.

michaelbrave• 7 years ago

There was the whole oil pipeline thing right after the recent administration came to power.

littlekosh• 7 years ago

We like stealing their children for one thing:

https://www.npr.org/2011/10/25/141672992/native-foster-care-...

https://theintercept.com/2019/06/17/indian-child-welfare-act...

4ntonius8lock2• 7 years ago

Am I the only one that finds the article strange?

I mean: "Most times, they can’t vote on the House floor..." - In the quoted text 'they' refers to the delegate that the Cherokee nation would get.

So they are fighting for a delegate with no floor voting power.

Then the article seems to conclude: "...the new delegate would give extra weight to Cherokee Nation citizens’ votes — a so-called “super vote.”

How can these two be? IANAL, so maybe someone with a legal background has some insight?

crooked-v2• 7 years ago

Delegates can't take part in the final floor vote on bills, but they can be part of committee votes before that, including (depending on the rules for that particular Congressional session) 'Committee of the Whole' votes when the entire House votes on non-final-bill matters.

4ntonius8lock2• 7 years ago

Ok. But does that really carry weight?

I mean, the way we treat our territories makes me think it doesn't. But I could be wrong.

pimmen• 7 years ago

I honestly cannot see how one can support the electoral college and not support that the Cherokee get their special representation in Congress as well.

At least, if the argument for the electoral college used is the oft repeated ”people from the more populous states would trample over the less populous states”. Why are people from sparsely populated states a minority that has to be treated like a special snowflake, lest their rights be violated by the more populous ones, but minorities like Native Americans who have suffered centuries of oppression are not? Especially when you can move from one state to another but you cannot stop being Native American.

GreaterFool• 7 years ago

since it would cover geographical territory that’s already part of two congressional districts

Correct me if I'm wrong but these districts can be created, destroyed or redrawn practically at a whim, no? I recall some ramblings that Democrats might remove the district in which AOC runs because they don't like her.

Don't know much about this issue just thinking it's a rather weak excuse.

After 184 years, Cherokees seek House delegate seat promised in treaty

Related Stories