7 ms·
The Cherokee want a representative in Congress, taking up a 200-year-old promise
- Ididntdothis 7y agoI like this just for the fact of having people in Congress that aren’t either Democrat or Republican.
- Digory 7y ago[ed. I stand corrected. Article says they have an Obama-administration official lined up.] Odds are the Cherokee would appoint a de facto Republican. They're largely conservative and entrepreneurial Oklahomans. The Cherokee Nation runs a bunch of gambling, energy, and defense contracting businesses. It's beyond amusing to me that Elizabeth Warren tried to claim in to the Cherokee; that tribe had almost no inclination to overlook her stretching.
- smacktoward 7y ago> Kimberly Teehee has been nominated to serve as the Cherokee delegate. She is currently the tribe's vice president of government relations, and previously worked as a senior policy advisor on Native American affairs for three years in President Barack Obama's administration. For about 12 years before that, Teehee was a senior advisor to Dale Kildee, then a Democratic congressman from Michigan.
- habeebtc 7y agoI wouldn't be surprised that they largely appoint Republicans. But the current Republican party is unlikely to give any extra votes to people of color, because it's a symbolic victory for Progressivism. It's part of why many folks on the right wing have a visceral dislike of President Obama. (You can guess the other 2 big reasons) So, if true that the Cherokee would likely appoint Republican candidates, and in general vote Republican, it's a sure thing they won't be allowed to get representation. For various reasons, nobody in power is inclined to derive a "win" from it. Which is unfortunate, because it's the least we can do. It's worth pointing out that Native Americans pay federal income taxes, and Taxation without Representation has, let's say, a bit of a History in this country.
- cm2012 7y agoThe vast majority of Native Americans vote Democratic, like most other minority groups: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.wpsanet.org/papers/docs/Why%2520Do%2520American%2520Indians%2520Vote%2520Democratic%2520(Jeonghun%2520Min).pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi4yuWF3Z_kAhXqc98KHW1mC-EQFjAGegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw1pB6dAP41QxMNp4YNCrO7p&cshid=1566794724876 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://...
- GrayTextIsTruth 7y agowhites in the California central valley are minorities and vote mostly republican.
- Digory 7y agoThat study specifically says Native Americans aren't as loyal to Democrats as other minority groups. In the survey at the heart of the paper, "a majority of American Indians voted Republican in the presidential and U.S. House elections." American Indians in Oklahoma are more likely to identify as Democrat than their white counterparts, but a majority still vote Republican. They're social conservatives, but economic interventionists. Native Americans have had long experience with "help" from Washington, especially on social integration. They understand it isn't all roses.
- BurningFrog 7y agoA lot of minority people have quite conservative values, but vote Democratic because they perceive Republicans as the party that hates them because of their race. If the GOP could get a half believable message out there that they're actually, really and honestly, a conservative patriotic free market party for all races and religions, I think they could completely dominate US elections for decades. But, much like the Democrats, they just can't help being really bad at seeming decent and competent.
- paggle 7y agoYou’re not counting the votes they would lose if they tacked away from explicit racial animus. It’s more than a few.
- GrayTextIsTruth 7y ago>patriotic free market party for all races and religions If it’s for everybody then it’s for nobody. This is called civic nationalism and it’s a globalist wet dream. The only other groups I respect are ones advocating for their own people like I’m doing.
- BurningFrog 7y ago> If it’s for everybody then it’s for nobody. It would only be for conservative, patriotic, free market supporters. That's far from everybody and far from not standing for anything.
- GrayTextIsTruth 7y agoWhen you care more about some stupid system than your own people then you don’t stand for anything. Usury and the free market is enslaving everybody. And you stand for that system and call it patriotic? Our country has to borrow its own money (with interest) from the FED. It’s pathetic. Things have changed so much in the last half few decades that a true conservative doesn’t want to conserve anything and is more of a revolutionary.
- Zigurd 7y ago
- lidHanteyk 7y agoWe owe voting rights and statehood to the native nations we colonized during the past three centuries.
- Nasrudith 7y agoAgreed - allowing a native nation or a coalition of them if too small (say roughly the least populous other state as Threshold) to be new States with 2 Senators is the least they deserve. Contingent on their collectively desire for such an arrangement of course as agency is important and well -learning from history of nations arising from arbitrary divisions causing problems.
- pnw_hazor 7y agoI doubt they would want to be states.
- javert 7y agoThis is a very collectivist and racist view. We are all Americans here. According to another comment, the Oklahoma Cherokee are very entrepreneurial and successful in business. They probably want to be treated like Americans instead of being treated like a racist charity project.
- protomyth 7y agoI am pretty sure they want the treaty honored and want their tribal rights as promised. They didn't exactly vote to become citizens, that was a decision made by the government, but a high percentage have served this country well. They understand the duality of country and tribe / nation.
- javert 7y ago> I am pretty sure they want the treaty honored and want their tribal rights as promised. They were promised a delegate to Congress. Not statehood, which is what I'm responding to. I think they should get their delegate if they want it, just because it's the law. None of us voted to become citizens.
- RickJWagner 7y agoInteresting. I never knew about the non-voting representatives before.
- smacktoward 7y agoYou would if you lived in Washington, D.C. Due to its unique status as a “Federal district” ceded to the government by Maryland and Virginia, the only Congressional representation the 700,000 residents of D.C. get is a single non-voting delegate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia%27s_at-large_congressional_district https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia%27s_at-la... (Despite this, they are of course taxed the same as everyone else, creating a weird modern-day case of “taxation without representation”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation#District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representa...)
- redis_mlc 7y agoThanks for posting the interesting example of “taxation without representation”. A couple other interesting things related: 1) One East Coast tribe was not defeated militarily. It's lands were gradually nibbled away with lawyering (zoning changes) over a period of decades. 2) During the Western Indian Wars, an equal number of soldiers and warriors died on both sides, about 10,000 each.
- 5555624 7y ago>Due to its unique status as a “Federal district” ceded to the government by Maryland and Virginia, It should be noted that Virginia's portion was given back -- retrocession -- in 1847. This is why one option that comes up for providing voting rights is to give the non-federal government portions of DC back to Maryland. This would keep the Federal District separate from any state; but, residents of what is currently DC would have voting representation. What was Virgina's contribution is Arlington County, VA.
- ddingus 7y agoI am in favor. Also, small part Cherokee.
- squiggleblaz 7y agoWhat's that mean, small paper Cherokee?
- ddingus 7y agoIt means autocorrect on mobile got in the way and I did not catch it. Grrrr
- protomyth 7y agoDo you know your blood quota? They tend to be really unhappy with people who claim ancestry without being on the tribal rolls.
- DoreenMichele 7y agoI hope this happens. Native Americans have unique challenges. A thing I ran across on twitter: Native Americans were being de facto disenfranchised because they couldn't use a PO Box as an address for purposes of voter registration and the reservations they were on only had PO Boxes as addresses for the residents. I am guessing that this wasn't conscious and intentional. I'm not suggesting some conspiracy theory to purposely disenfranchise them. But the sorts of issues Indigenous peoples face are not faced by most other Americans and they at least need a voice to begin educating the powers that be about ways in which their reality is overlooked and how this negatively impacts them.
- rayiner 7y agoThis varies by state, but note that, in North Dakota, for example, the 911 coordinator can have an address assigned in a quick process: https://vip.sos.nd.gov/pdfs/Portals/VotingInformationforTribalMembers.pdf https://vip.sos.nd.gov/pdfs/Portals/VotingInformationforTrib.... Voting in places that lack infrastructure people tend to take for granted (fixed addresses) definitely poses challenges that state officials must address. I suspect at least with larger reservations, progress could be made by delegating more control over voting and polling places to tribal governments. At the same time (as reflected in the comments below), people unfairly deride any sort of voter identification requirement as a conscious attempt at disenfranchisement, when in reality U.S. states have some of the laxest voter identification requirements in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_Identification_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_Identification_laws. I voted recently in Maryland, and I was actually quite shocked and a little perturbed how little verification was performed at the polling site. (I didn't have to show ID, just wrote down my address. Anyone could've pretended to be me.)
- DoreenMichele 7y agoI was homeless for a few years. I'm abundantly familiar with how lacking the usual assumed default living arrangements can negatively impact one's life. I'm also quite clear that most of it was not some intentional effort to make my life unnecessarily harder. I certainly ran into genuine prejudice and discrimination, but most problems I wrestled with incidentally happened to be more challenging because my life didn't neatly fit standard assumptions. I've generally found it helpful in life to not assume malice where ignorance/obliviousness are sufficient explanations.
- TMWNN 7y ago>Some organizations could mount legal challenges to the Cherokee Nation's push for a delegate, Rosser added, potentially arguing that the move gives citizens of the tribe more representation in Congress than non-indigenous US citizens. This is going to prevent the representative from being seated. This is why tribes opposed the Indian Citizen Act of 1924 [1] in the first place; they were afraid that giving all Indians citizenship would fundamentally change the nature of their relationship with the US government. The Cherokee can't have it both ways. They can't have American citizenship—and, thus, representation in Congress in Oklahoma or elsewhere—and an extra delegate of their own. Such exists in New Zealand, but that's explicitly provided for by law, and it's controversial; the New Zealand First Party,[2] which a few years ago held all seven Maori seats,[3] has a policy of wanting to abolish said seats, and no longer runs candidates for them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_First https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_First [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māori_electorates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māori_electorates
- pryce 7y agoIt can be done. In New Zealand, our indigenous population (Māori) has New Zealand citizenship, and has an opt-in seperate electoral roll which has 7 seats of the 120 seat parliament [1]. Māori citizens have the choice whether to vote on the "General roll" or the "Māori roll". This acts to ensure indigenous people always have a voice in parliament, and is seen as fulfillment of the treaty obligations on which this country is founded. This -combined with "mixed member proportional" style voting largely prevents any attempts at racist gerrymandering. In practice, while the number of seats may not be large, MMP governments frequently are made from coalitions between parties, meaning that both our two largest parties are interested in contesting either the seats themselves or securing an alliance with whichever smaller party might win them, meaning the presence of these seats does translate into actual policy concessions to our indigenous people. I should note here that at the time of its historical origin in 1867, the seperate Māori roll was compulsory for Māori, and was intended as a way to disenfranchise Māori by proportionally reducing their influence. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māori_electorates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māori_electorates
- olalonde 7y agoThis doesn't belong on HN. > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. This article is about U.S. internal politics and literally starts with a TV show segment.
- Stratoscope 7y agoAs a counterpoint, I've learned a few interesting things from the discussion here. So as always, YMMV.
- niceworkbuddy 7y agoFor comparison: I live in Poland. Here legislative power is called "Sejm" and deputies are selected in elections (as usual in typical European country). However, there are two places in Sejm, for German minorities deputies. There are barely few thousand Germans living in Poland but in location surrounding Opole city. These people have two representatives in our Sejm.