Editorial:
Indian vs. Indian
Sovereignty can put tribal
members at risk
Bee Editorial Staff
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Tuesday, November 25,
2003
As the wealth and influence of California's
gambling tribes has grown, non-Indian
reservation neighbors, patrons at tribal casinos
and even local and state governments have been
made alarmingly aware of how powerless they are
when matched against tribal governments
asserting their sovereign rights in arbitrary
ways. Tribes can't be sued. They can't be
required to comply with local zoning laws or
state environmental, health and safety
regulations. Their tribal enterprises, no matter
how profitable, can't be taxed.
But non-Indians are not the only ones placed
at risk by the unchecked power of wealthy tribal
governments. The recent dispute between
competing factions of a Butte County tribe, as
reported by The Bee's Steve Wiegand, shows just
how vulnerable tribal members can be too.
Seventy members of the Enterprise Rancheria
tribe of Estom Yumeka Maidu literally lost
their birthright the other day when they
challenged their elected leaders. The
dissident tribal members were voted out of the
tribe because they signed a recall petition
against tribal leaders. Those booted say they
were given just three minutes each to defend
themselves before a vote was taken. They were
not allowed even to vote on their own fate.
According to experts on Indian law, the
ousted tribal members have no recourse. Federal
law and court decisions have made it clear that
tribal governments alone have the power to
determine tribal membership. In fact,
determining tribal membership is the very
essence of sovereignty.
When disputes arise, most tribes,
particularly the small-family or clan-based
bands that exist in California, have no written
laws on which to base their membership
decisions, nor any courts to which those
challenging tribal leaders can appeal. Losers in
a tribal dispute can take their case to the
federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, but
historically the BIA has refused to intervene.
Intratribal disputes are not a new
phenomenon. They are noticed more because the
wealth generated by Indian casinos has raised
exponentially the stakes in such disputes. When
squabbles escalate, those on the losing end can
find themselves deprived not just of the
gambling profits to which they are entitled, but
also to their very identity as a member of the
tribe. As the Butte County case so dramatically
illustrates, the arbitrary and unchecked power
of tribal governments can be a threat to the
very people such governments are supposed to
represent.
