Freedmen Case Before DC Circuit Court of Appeals

From Indianz.com, via Wampum who caught it before I did. I tend to agree with Judge Steven Russell (who comes from a long line of Cherokee Judges) that the panels' questions indicate they don't necessarily believe the Cherokee Nation has to be sued by the Freedmen in order for the Federal Gov't to enforce the Treaty of 1866. So, if that's really what the panel is thinking, does that mean the BIA would disallow the 2003 Constitution? Sever the government-to-government relationship with CN until the Freedmen are guaranteed citizenship? Both of the above? And, of course, we shouldn't get too excited that this will all be resolved anytime soon; whoever is on the losing end of the three judge panel's decision will move for a rehearing en banc (before the entire Court, including the virulently anti-Indian Judge Janice Rogers Brown); whoever loses that will likely appeal to the US Supreme Court. And if it gets into the hands of this Supreme Court, God help us all. If there's anyway for the Freedmen, CN AND tribal sovereignty to ALL lose, this Supreme Court will find it.

UPDATE: And speaking of threats to tribal sovereignty, the Smith Administration has succeeded in having the Delaware Tribe stripped of its Federal recognition (and funding), the first time this has happened since the end of the Termination Era.

Quick Freedmen Update

Cong. Barney Frank, the powerful and well-connected Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, announced he will oppose a conference committee report on HR 2786 (the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act) unless it contains the Freedmen Rider proposed by the Congressional Black Caucus. So far, all of Chief Smith's intensive lobbying hasn't come to much.

More coverage and thoughtful commentary by my Right Honourable Cherokee Colleague, EBW at Wampum.

Senate to Attach Freedmen Rider

The US Senate is apparently poised to add a measure by the Congressional Black Caucus to cut housing funding to the Cherokee Nation if the Freedmen are disenrolled. Chief Chad Smith has been lobbying heavily against the proposal, which has already passed the House, an amendment to the reauthorization of the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act. If the NAHSDA passes with the Freedmen rider, the pressure on the Cherokee Nation to reach some kind of settlement will increase dramatically. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a compromise left that both sides could sign off on. The Freedmen have a good case, legally and morally, that all Freedmen should remain as citizens. The Smith Administration has backed itself into a corner by refusing to even acknowledge that any of the Freedmen have a legitimate claim.

My Infamy Spreads

Once again, I am quoted in the Tahlequah Daily Press, this time over the controversy concerning term limits for principal chief and whether or not they apply to incumbent Chad Smith.

Morality and the Freedmen

From Wampum (back from summer vacation), a thought-provoking discussion of the moral aspects of the Freedmen controversy. The comments raise yet another point: if you are (like me) a fairly militant supporter of Tribal Sovereignty, what do you do when a tribe (particularly your tribe) uses its sovereignty to commit a grave moral injustice? Even though I am very sympathetic to the Freedmen and I hope they remain as tribal members, I can't find myself rooting for Congress to ride to the rescue by cutting funding, since the very act of doing so states rather implicitly that Congress has once again expanded the scope of its peremptory powers to now decide tribal membership. If tribes can't decide who is and who isn't an Indian, what sovereignty do they have left?

On a semi-related note, my boys and I were in Tahlequah this weekend for the Cherokee National Holiday. I managed to miss Principal Chief Chad Smith wrapping himself in the flag of the very sovereignty he has endangered, but I did watch him get knocked off his feet and into the air two or three times during a stickball game Saturday Night. He was the oldest one playing by (I would guess) ten or fifteen years and apparently didn't realize they were playing "Choctaw Rules". Eventually, someone yelled "Don't hurt him!" and they stopped clobbering him. To his credit, though, he stuck it out to the bitter end, and his team won 5-4. You won't see George W. Bush suiting up for the Superbowl, I can guarantee you that.

Stacy Leeds on the Watson Bill

A bill was introduced in Congress today to pull our federal funds, close our casinos, and terminate our federal recognition. It's truly a sad day for the Cherokee Nation. The rash decisions and inconsistent legal arguments of our current administration bring us to this point.
Will the bill pass? Doubtful.
Does the introduction of the bill matter? Without a doubt.
In addition to this proposed legislation, a federal court case is pending and there is on-going review by the BIA regarding the legality of the March 3rd Special Election. Now all three branches of the United States government are fully engaged in the fall out of our decision to expel a class of tribal citizens.
Why is this happening? The Cherokee people, although certainly possessing the right to redefine citizenship, were not told the whole story by the current administration. The Cherokee people were not fully advised of the legal and political consequences of the special election. Instead, the decision was rushed and public debate and deliberations were suppressed.
Why was the federal bill not introduced earlier? Principal Chief Chad Smith has been in negotiations to delay the introduction of this bill so that it would not be introduced the week before the election. He didn't want to allow the Cherokee people the opportunity to know the seriousness of our present situation. Instead, he attempted to negotiate some undisclosed deal to keep this out of the media.
My concern is two fold: (1) The Principal Chief does not have the authority to strike a secret "deal" with the Freedmen without discussing it with the Tribal Council; and (2) exactly what were the details of Chief Smith's "offer" to the Freedmen?
The introduction of the bill was delayed for a week based on the Principal Chief's promises. What exactly did he promise? How much would his promise cost the Cherokee people?
I will alway support the Cherokee people's right to make decisions, good or bad. What must end, if we are to be a healthy nation, are the half-truths and secret dealings of our present leadership.
A positive change is just around the corner . . . . vote Saturday June 23rd.

Some More Cherokee Election News

George Wickliffe, Chief of the United Keetoowah Band, denounces Chad Smith (who is also a UKB member) for endangering tribal sovereignty by violating the 1866 Treaty and disenrolling the Freedmen.

Pre-election rumors are flying around Tahlequah. The latest claims that Chief Smith has held out the prospect of some kind of Freedmen Tribe with gaming rights in exchange for Congress calling off the dogs until after the election. Frankly, while I certainly respect the source, this sounds way too ludicrous to be believed. There is simply no lawful way to fabricate a "Freedman Tribe" out of thin air, and even if you could, they would have no land base and thus no gaming. If Chief Smith won't let the UKB build casinos on CN land, can you really imagine him letting the Freedmen do it?

UPDATE: More to the rumor as Cong. Diane Watson confirms that "negotiations" are going on and Chad Smith, as expected, denies offering the Freedmen their own band. Like Wampum, though, I'm not really sure what these "negotiations" can actually accomplish, given that yet another constitutional amendment would be required to allow the Freedmen back in.

Chad Smith and...Jack Abramoff?

Wampum shows that Chief Smith did more than just talk economic development with Abramoff's shop. How many Cherokee voters will hear about this between now and the 23rd?

Around the Blogosphere...

My guest-post over at Rachel's Tavern on the Cherokee tribal elections.

Meanwhile, Back In Federal Court...

...the Freedmen are back in front of Judge Kennedy seeking an injunction against the June 23rd tribal election. Chief Smith says that Cherokee sovereignty is at stake. Yes, yes, it is. And you put it there.

Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel

At the urging of Chad Smith, the Tribal Council passed (in 35 seconds, no less) a new constitutional amendment to again remove the requirement that the Cherokee Nation bow and scrape to the Federal government for permission to amend its own Constitution. So far, so good; but the reason for the haste was to ram it onto the ballot in time for the June 23rd election, because Smith and company are desperate to ensure that the Freedmen only get to vote once. Of course, many absentee voters have already sent in their ballots (without this provision on them, naturally), so new ballots will have to be sent out, leading to even more chaos and confusion. I'm also told that the Tribal government is refusing to even give a list of the Freedmen to their court-appointed attorney!
Meanwhile, it seems increasingly likely that the Congressional Black Caucus will move to cut off funds to the Nation (about 80% of the total budget), leading to a disaster of Seminole proportions.
I'm starting to fear that by the time Stacy Leeds becomes Principal Chief, there won't be any tribe left to govern.

Getting Worser Still

The Interior Department has rejected a 2003 amendment to the Cherokee Constitution that removed the requirement that the BIA approve all changes to the Constitution. Of course, Chief Smith is right that this decision is insulting and an affront to tribal sovereignty, but what are the odds it would've happened if he hadn't pursued his cynical plot to disenroll the Freedmen?

Nanai Delasi Gatlitela

Your humble blogger joined about ten Metroplex-Area Cherokee citizens to meet with Judge Stacy Leeds, candidate for Principal Chief (top photo), and her running mate, Raymond Vann, candidate for Deputy Principal Chief (bottom photo). Also present was Sean R. Nordwall, candidate for Tribal Council At-Large, Place 2. The discussion over coffee and donuts was very productive, and included several novel ideas for diversifying the Cherokee economy and ending the tribe's crippling dependence on Federal funds, such as forming a tribal bank and a tribal insurance company, as well as taking advantage of the currently unused International Port near Sallisaw. There was also talk about the current Administration's "culture of corruption," the unconscionable fact that only about a dime out of every dollar currently taken in by the tribe ever makes it to the people, and the danger to tribal sovereignty of the Administration's disastrous policy towards the Freedmen. I found it particularly outrageous that Chief Chad Smith has twice vetoed a minimum wage for Cherokee workers, when tribal employees of CNI are currently making so little they qualify for commodities. Come June 23rd, the Cherokee Nation needs a change of leadership, but more than that, a change in attitude, and a leadership that reflects traditional tribal values of self-sufficiency, honesty and compassion towards elders and the poor.

Chad Smith and...Abramoff?!?!

This guy keeps showing up like a bad penny. OKG News is reporting that Abramoff donated $1,500 to Chad Smith's 2002 re-election campaign. Then, in 2003, CNE (Cherokee Nation Enterprises) paid Abramoff $120,000, though the article doesn't say what the payments were for. Jon Velie, an attorney for the Freedmen, is claiming this as proof that Abramoff was involved in the March 3 election that kicked the Freedmen out of the tribe, though that seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Frankly, it's bad enough that Smith would accept money from Abramoff (and I noticed he doesn't say he donated the money to charity after Abramoff was convicted) or that CNE would fall for this huckster's routine.
Also blogged at Wampum.

The Company You Keep

Oklahoma elected officials, including Governor Brad Henry and Lieutenant Governor Jari Askins are scrambling to distance themselves from Cherokee Principal Chief Chad Smith after the NAACP expressed outrage that they were planning to attend a Smith fundraiser. Smith, meanwhile, is scrambling to distance himself from the anti-Freedmen vote. In the immortal words of Senator Barbara Boxer, "Elections have consequences."

Freedmen Kicked Out

The constitutional amendment to disenroll the Freedmen has apparently passed overwhelmingly, despite strong editorials against it. With the federal courts now involved, the Cherokee Nation faces the very real threat that the June Tribal elections will either be thrown out or not recognized by the BIA, leading to a cut off of vital funding. Principal Chief Chad Smith, one of the strongest backers of the amendment, began trying even before the vote to put a positive spin on what is clearly a race-based disenfranchisement of thousands of people with strong historical, cultural and in some cases blood ties to the Nation. I have a great fear that the end result of all this will be yet another blow to tribal sovereignty.

UPDATE: More reactions to the vote from around the Blogosphere. And here. And here. And here. And here. And here. And here.

Blood Will Tell

I think it's astonishing that neither this USA Today story, nor Principal Chief Chad Smith's rebuttal to it, make mention of the central fact in this dispute: most of the Freedmen were not given a blood quanta on the Dawes Roll (due to the prevailing racist belief at the time that "one drop" of "black blood" made one "black") and therefore they cannot prove their eligibility for tribal citizenship, no matter how much "Indian blood" they have. Since we know the Freedmen were discriminated against, why can't the tribe simply allow them to register if they can show "Indian blood" from a source other than the Dawes Roll, such as one of the other rolls, the Cherokee census or so forth? This would allow Freedmen who are of genuine Cherokee ancestry to retain their citizenship, while weeding out those who have no "Indian blood," but are the descendents of those granted tribal membership on the order of the Federal Government in 1866. I hardly think I'm the smartest person watching this controversy; surely this solution has occured to someone else? Chief Smith is absolutely right; determining citizenship is a fundamental right of any sovereign Nation. But, as a dispossesed people, victims of ethnic cleansing, scattered into diaspora by the cruelty of a racist federal government, does not the Cherokee Nation have a larger moral duty? The duty to preserve the Nation by ensuring that ALL members of the tribe are ackowledged as citizens? Particularly those whose ancestors were subject to the first and largest termination in the whole sad history of that failed policy, the Dawes Commission?

Yet More on the Freedmen Controversy

The Cherokee Supreme Court is set to rule on Principal Chief Chad Smith's proposed referendum to kick the Freedmen out of the tribe. Let's be completely clear here: this has NOTHING to do with "Cherokee blood." There are enrollees on the Dawes Rolls who have NO "Indian blood" whatsoever, let alone "Cherokee blood," and everyone knows it. There are Freedmen who HAVE "Cherokee blood," and can prove it, and everyone knows it. But their ancestors were not given a blood quantum due to the racism of the Dawes Commission. And everyone knows that.

Unelanvhi asitiha Anitsalagi. God Save the Cherokee Nation.

Right For the Wrong Reasons

Chief Smith is absolutely right that the sovereign Cherokee Nation should not have to bow and scrape to the BIA for permission to amend its own constitution. He is absolutely wrong in using this argument as a way to force out the Freedmen from the tribe, by making it impossible for them to prove they meet the racist, white-created criteria of having "Indian blood."