32 ms·
After 184 years, Cherokees seek House delegate seat promised in treaty
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y agoBack when the treaty signed, Native Americans did not have the right to vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_civil_rights#Voting 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 7y agoMany tribal lands don't have street addresses and in some states you have to have a residence with an address to vote.
- Rebelgecko 7y agoStill? IIRC North Dakota tried to make that the law but it was struck down.
- kej 7y agoThe supreme court upheld the requirement that IDs have a street address, but some (maybe most or all, not sure) of the tribal authorities were able to assign street names and reissue IDs in time.
- sjg007 7y agoWe should all move to gps coordinates
- tpm 7y agoGPS coordinates of houses can change, while the address should stay the same.
- JasonFruit 7y agoDo you mean if the same house is moved to a new location on the same lot? I'm finding this difficult to imagine.
- tpm 7y agoNo, I mean the movement of earth underneath the house, tectonic plates etc. Earthquakes are one obvious example: https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/7182/does-an-earthquake-affect-gps https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/7182/does-an-earthqu...
- ralmeida 7y agoTo be fair, the cited displacement of 8 ft (average for non-earthquake situations is 0 to 10cm) is within the typical margin of error of a GPS. That is, the coordinate change is small enough not to matter for “election” purposes.
- sjg007 7y agoFine... GPS coordinates as of a specific date.
- lacker 7y agoAddresses change a lot more often than gps coordinates. Streets get renamed, removed, or renumbered.
- dillondoyle 7y agoYes this was an issue in a race I worked last cycle in Montana. Deliberately hostile SOS to benefit Rs
- mrec 7y ago"SOS"?
- geofft 7y ago"Secretary of state," I assume.
- mtnGoat 7y agoSecretary of State, i believe.
- dillondoyle 7y agosecretary of state sorry!
- WaitWaitWha 7y agoReading the "How to Register to Vote" indicates otherwise. sosmt.gov/elections/vote/#how-to-register-to-vote Specifically "You will need to provide a residence address or specific geographic location information from which your residence address may be determined. The residence address must be in the county in which you are registering." This clearly allows someone without an "address" to register. In my experience identifying the Post Office on or near the tribe's land is plenty sufficient.
- cthalupa 7y ago>or specific geographic location information from which your residence address may be determined. The 'from which your residence address may be determined" reads, to me, like you still need an address. If you don't have a residence address, how can you provide information that determines where it is? It's nonexistent.
- devicetray0 7y agoIs 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?
- plurple 7y agoNative American land laws are a disaster, and it’s not their fault. It’s a large contributor to poverty as well. I’m still not sure if that was an unintended or intended consequence of US govt treaties.
- undreren 7y agoWhy is this comment so downvoted? I'm not american, and I was also curious about why they don't have an adress. As far as I know, only homeless people don't have an adress in Denmark. EDIT: Great, now I'm downvoted as well! Huzzah!
- goodcanadian 7y agoNot native American, but grew up in a rural area (in Canada). My parents only got a "street address" a couple of years ago. There is a land location system going back over a century, but basically no one who didn't live on a farm new how to interpret it (say 98% of the population), and so it was basically useless as an address. The new "street address" is actually based on the land location, but it is formatted like a street address (house number, road name) rather than specifying quarter, section, township, range, meridian. Throughout my childhood, we usually just used a postal address, but in the last couple of decades, bank officials and the like have gotten more and more insistent on a physical address which we were basically unable to provide.
- abandonliberty 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Land_Survey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Land_Survey
- wglb 7y agoWhere I grew up in Montana, we didn't have a street address. Only about 20 years ago did they name the road (after my grandfather) and assign addresses.
- daveslash 7y agoIIRC, 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.
- shaneprrlt 7y agoAll I have to say to this is a deal's a deal. Doesn't matter if it was 184 years ago. :)
- unchocked 7y agoThe 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_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_in_the_American_Civil...
- jeremyjh 7y agoA lot of people fought for the confederacy, but their descendants still have representation in congress because peace was made and status restored. Also I don't think you can make a case that the Cherokee Nation was at war with the United States during that time, just because some of its citizens joined irregular militias.
- COGlory 7y agoCherokee also have representation in Congress because they have senators and representatives that they vote for every year just like everyone else.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dajohnson89 7y agoI believe the sentiment is that Cherokees and other native american nations aren't sufficiently represented by their elected officials. in much the same way they have been marginalized for centuries.
- NotSammyHagar 7y agoThey 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 7y agoAccording to https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state-and-regional/citing-treaties-cherokees-call-on-congress-to-seat-delegate-from/article_9da9a5d4-69a1-52d8-bad6-beea75a2e17e.html https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state-and-regional/citing-tr... the delegate might not be able to vote
- Jtsummers 7y agoThere's no "might not be able to vote", they would not be able to vote, the position is a non-voting delegate.
- Bluestrike2 7y agoDelegates 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_States_House_of_Representatives) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_the_Whole_(United...
- stordoff 7y ago> though if theirs is the deciding vote on a measure, a new vote takes place without them Doesn't this mean they effectively can't vote? It seems they can only vote on things that would have passed (or been rejected anyway.
- protomyth 7y agoI would imagine that Carpenter v. Murphy might end up being a bit of an indicator on which way this will end up getting litigated.
- alteria 7y agoYou 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.
- beerandt 7y agoThis 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 7y agoWhat is up with all the Native American casinos?
- jcranmer 7y agoTo 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 7y agoI'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 7y agoYeah, I'm all for it. If anyone can out-victimize our entitled political factions, its the Native Americans.
- danharaj 7y agoWhich factions do you have in mind?
- jlawson 7y agoYou'd probably start with 'healthy young university-educated white women' and work your way out from there.
- arcticbull 7y agoNot everything that is the way it is, is right or just. We can work to better ourselves, we can have multiple problems, and we can work on all of them in parallel.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- chadlavi 7y agoI don't think this comment needs any qualification
- tathougies 7y agoActually, 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.
- JamesSchriver 7y agoThe "Cherokee Nation" which abrogated any claim to being an actual separate national entity within the USA when they agreed to national recognition and citizenship within the boundaries of Oklahoma, already have two delegates in two different districts, the first and second Congressional districts of Oklahoma.
- Consultant32452 7y agoMy 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.
- tathougies 7y agoYes please! Open one up for us Catholics, and another one for us minority Catholics who face double discrimination! And one for the Muslims too!
- tengbretson 7y agoDon't forget left-handed people!
- Jtsummers 7y agoThis could conceivably be done by creating a notion of special-interest delegates. The groups they represent could register, be voted on by the people (general election). If they received a sufficient vote (10-20%?) then they'd exist for some period of time (10-20 years?). People could then register with the special-interest groups of their choice (perhaps a limited number, with a minimum period of membership to avoid people attempting to spoil elections, they'd have to choose to join groups they cared about or groups they wished to spoil, but have a hard time doing both). Delegates would be nominated by various participants within the special-interest group. Consider that, a labor delegate, could be nominated by various unions, as an example. Or in your Catholic example, the Knights of Columbus and the Franciscan Order. Delegates would be a sort of elected lobbyist, but instead of operating behind closed doors (so much), they'd have to layout their position in campaigns before being elected to such a position. I'm not sure this'd be a good idea overall, it has a lot of downsides that I don't have time to describe as I'm about to head out the door. But there's some merit to the concept.
- mcthrowaway123z 7y agoPerhaps 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 7y agoAre 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 7y agoI 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.
- celticmusic 7y agothey're not outside the scope of US law. Governments set laws based upon land areas. This is why we have things like county lines, state lines, city lines, etc. But these local governments have no jurisdiction over federal land. This is why you can have a federal building in the middle of a city, and that city's laws do not apply to the building, or the land around the building (that's held by the US government). Native land is technically federal land that's held on behalf of the tribes. And THIS is why local laws don't apply to native land. It's a common misconception that native american tribes are sovereign. They're considered 'domestic dependent nations', but not sovereign. This is why, for example, the US can limit their ability to issue drivers licenses and travel VISA's.
- snagglegaggle 7y agoBut they are outside the scope in very important ways this glosses over and which does make them much more sovereign than a state, such as sin taxes (cigarettes) and gun law enforcement (a PMC was incorporated in and trading fully automatic weapons through Indian territory). The basis for those is what is important.
- yosefzeev 7y agoPity she is a Democrat, but good that some representation is finally present.
- propter_hoc 7y agoThis is fascinating. Good for them in researching their historical rights. I hope they succeed - it will only help Congress to have their views represented.
- tathougies 7y agoWe 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 7y 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. "
- tathougies 7y agoI'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.
- PeterisP 7y agoWell, there was at least a theoretical plan by Hitler to resettle Jews to Madagascar.
- tathougies 7y agoOMG, you're right. Granting the native americans sovereignty over reservation land is exactly the same as enacting the Holocaust. You cannot make Hacker News up sometimes.
- mjevans 7y agoYou'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?
- ogou 7y agoHere is a photo of the Cherokee Nation capital building, preserved at New Echota, Georgia. https://joshuacurry.com/american-way/cherokee-capitol-new-echota-north-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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_New_Echota
- hurrdurr2 7y agoI 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 7y 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 7y agoI 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.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y agoAm 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-v 7y agoDelegates 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.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y agoOk. 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.
- crooked-v 7y agoIt doesn't carry a lot of weight, but it's better than nothing.
- pimmen 7y agoI 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 7y 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.