Federal and Local Statutes and Their Affects on Indian Populations

1
Federal and Local Statutes and Their Affects on
Indian Populations

• Kristen Lucero and Esteban Valenzuela
• Tuesday, June 06, 2006
• Professor Thorne

2
Aims

• We intend to show some of the problems that
  gaming casinos have brought about for the state,
  the federal government, the individual Indian and
  the Reservation
• Main Issue with the state and federal government
  Do we allow the Reservations full sovereignty or
  are we obliged to protect the individuals
  Constitutional rights?
• Main Issue for the Reservation Who gets to be
  treated like an Indian and how is that decided?

3
Indian Reorganization Act or the Wheeler-Howard
Act (1934)

• Informally referred to as the Indian New Deal
• Federal Legislation
• Undid the Dawes Act of 1887- Authorized the
  President of the United States to survey Indian
  Land and divide it into allotments and give it
  to individual Indians.
• Return to Local Self-Government and Management of
  their assets.
• Main Point Made Indian Tribes Quasi-Sovereign
  giving them the ability to start business.

4
Tribal Self-Determination

• Assimilation of the Native Americans came as a
  Federal Policy goal came to an end in 1968.
• 1970 Nixon sent Congress his policy of
  Self-determination.
• 1973 Senator Henry Jackson introduces
  self-determination bill
• 1975 Congress passes Indian Self-determination
  and Education Assistance Act.
• Main Point This allows Indians to determine
  their own members.

5
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 1988

• 5 Points of the legislation
• provide a statutory basis for the operation of
  gaming by Indian tribes
• to promote tribal economic development,
  self-sufficiency, and strong
• tribal governments
• provide a statutory basis for the regulation of
  Indian gaming to ensure
• tribes are the primary beneficiaries
• establish
• a) independent federal regulatory authority for
  Indian gaming,
• b) federal standards for Indian gaming, and
• c) the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC),
  to meet congressional
• concerns regarding Indian gaming and
  protect such gaming as a means
• of generating tribal revenue
• shield gaming from organized crime and other
  corrupting influences and
• ensure that gaming is conducted fairly and
  honestly by both the operators
• and the players.

6
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 1988 Continued

• Indian Gaming Divided into 3 Different
  Categories (purpose is tax regulations)
• Class I consists of social games that have prizes
  of minimal value traditional tribal games
  played in connection with tribal ceremonies or
  celebrations.
• Class II primarily includes bingo (whether or not
  it is electronically enhanced), pulled tabs,
  lotto, punch boards, tip jars, instant bingo
  games similar to bingo, and non banking card
  games allowed by the state.
• Class III gaming includes all gaming that is not
  class I or class II gaming, which primarily
  includes slot machines, casino games, banking
  card games, dog racing horse, horse racing and
  lotteries.

7
Re-Emergence of The California Indian
8
Why the Sudden Increase In the California Indian

• State populations of California Indians increase
  around the same time as the Gaming Casinos emerge
• There is a large influx (200,000) of other
  national Indians into California as the Gaming
  Casino Strengthens its position due to
  legislation in Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of
  1988
• California is one of the leading states in Gaming
  Casino Revenue

9
Kosiba vs. Pueblo of San Juan, San Juan Gaming
Commission

• Robert Kosiba was the former Gaming Commissioner
  of the Pueblo of San Juan Tribe
• As the appointed commissioner he disciplined
  several employees of the gaming commission
• These employees in turn instigated an
  investigation that led to Kosiba being dismissed
  as gaming commissioner
• Plaintiff (Kosiba) filed a suit against the
  commission for not adequately noticing him of
  the accusations against him and for money
  damages the plaintiff loss for not being able to
  earn a living
• State essentially ruled that the Indian Gaming
  Commission had full sovereignty in making its
  decision stating that the Defendants were immune
  from suit

10
Why is Kosiba vs. The San Juan Tribe important?

• It is another case in which the courts uphold
  Indian sovereignty
• It shows us how gambling on reservations has
  created an uprising in cases brought to the state
  by singled out tribal members
• We can also see how without protection from the
  state, these singled out tribe members are not
  protected from large organized groups (the Indian
  Reservation itself)

11
Torres Martinez Clan vs. Santa Rosa Indians

• The Torres Martinez People are a group of people
  that were recognized as part of the Santa Rosa
  Band of Indians
• They were actually full blooded Indians belonging
  to the Santa Rosa Band
• They did not want to start a casino on the Santa
  Rosa Reservation when the decision was being made
• Not a wealthy group of people

12
Torres Martinez Clan vs. Santa Rosa Indians

• The Hamiltons are a different group of people
  belonging to the Santa Rosa Tribe of Indians
• They are mixed blood
• They were in favor of starting gaming casinos on
  the reservation and are backed up by casino
  investors
• They have plenty of money

13
Torres Martinez Clan vs. Santa Rosa Indians

• The Half Blooded Hamiltons petitioned to expel
  the Torres Martinez Clan because they stood in
  the way of gaming casinos and ultimately money
  for the reservation
• The Hamiltons were successful in dismembering the
  Torres Martinez Clan
• There is now a state case pending brought against
  the Santa Rosa Indians by the Torres Martinez
  Clan for an unjust disenrollment

14
Torres Martinez Clan vs. Santa Rosa Indians What
do You Think?

• Does the state have the right to make decisions
  regarding Indian Reservation Issues?
• Is it fair that full blooded Indians have been
  kicked out of their tribe over Reservation
  disputes, and are these Indians still protected
  under the constitution?
• How would you rule if you were the jury in this
  case?
• What about Amendment VII?

15
Torres Martinez Clan vs. Santa Rosa Indians What
does this case show us?

• This case exemplifies the Catch 22 that both
  the state and federal governments face when
  dealing with Indian issues
• We also see from this case that the Indian
  Reservations do not have a strict code for
  incorporation of Indians into their reservations
• In other words, who is an Indian as determined
  by the reservation if the Torres Martinez People
  are not?

16
Increasing National Indian Population
17
Stephanie Young

• Grew up as a member of the Pechanga tribe of
  Indians
• Had a strong sense of heritage and of being an
  Indian
• Went to UCI in 2002 as a Freshmen
• Got all living expenses and schooling paid for
• Received an additional 10,000 a month from the
  tribe for personal use
• In 2004 her entire family was kicked out of the
  Pechanga tribe of Indians without warning.
• Decision of the Tribal Enrollment Committee
• Was left with nothing, no money, had to pay her
  own schooling and took 3 jobs to support herself

18
History of the Pechanga Case

• 134 ex-members of the Pechanga Tribe brought law
  suits against the tribe for losses of 10,000 a
  month, health care and other benefits
• They believe that the due process used by the
  tribes enrollment committee was not sufficient
• The 134 plaintiffs believe that their lineage
  ties to Manuela Miranda, who is the granddaughter
  of Pablo Apis
• Pablo Apis is a documented Pechanga member whos
  lineage is documented in the official 1979
  Pechanga enrollment book

19
Pechanga Indians

• They are another tribe fighting for sovereignty
  believing that The Pechanga Enrollment Committee
  is the entity responsible for determining issues
  of enrollment and citizenship as established in
  our tribal laws.
• But the expelled Indians are using Public Law 280
  (passed by the federal govt in 1953), which
  gives State courts the authority to interpret
  tribal law in civil and criminal matters.
• Another group of disenrolled Indians watching
  this case closely is the Redding Rancheria
  Indians who had also tried to overturn tribal law
  but failed, and there are many other disenrolled
  Indians like this.

20
History of the Pechanga Case

• The lawsuit has gone back and forth between the
  state, appellate and federal courts
• The Case made it to the supreme court where the
  question was asked if the state government has
  jurisdiction over the enrollment issues
• Why is this relevant to our presentation?
• Because the issue is still whether the
  sovereignty of American Indian tribes trumps the
  rights of its people under the U.S Constitution

21
Supreme Court Ruling on Pechanga Case

• May 23, 2006 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to
  hear the Pechanga case.
• Case arose out of a 2004 decision of the Pechanga
  Tribal Enrollment Committee decision to remove
  some 130 members off of its tribal roll.
• The question that would have gone before the
  court was if the CA courts have the jurisdiction
  to decide tribal enrollment cases.
• Original Lawsuit filed Jan. 2004 by 11
  disenrolled members on behalf of 130 disenrolled
  members.
• Riverside County Superior Court sided with the
  disenrolled members, 4th district court of appeal
  ruled the lower court didnt have jurisdiction
  last Nov. the CA Supreme Court refused to hear
  case.
• 2nd lawsuit is still pending, disenrolled members
  claiming damages of more than 50 Million.

22
Conclusion

• Legislation such as the Indian Reorganization Act
  and Tribal Self-Determination have laid the
  groundwork that has led to Indian Gaming.
• Indian Gaming has given Indians vast financial
  opportunities like never before.
• These financial opportunities have lead to a
  surge in the Indian population.
• Surge in population has lead to some Indians
  being discriminated against by their own tribes
  and disenfranchised.

23
Bibliography

• http//aspe.hhs.gov/SelfGovernance/Evaluation/revd
  raft/leghist.htm1 (June 1, 2006)
• http//www.infca.org/tribes/IRA.htm (June 4,
  2006)
• http//www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p3908.pdfsearch'I
  ndian20Gaming20Regulations (June 3, 2006)
• http//www.pechanga.com/ (June 1, 2006)