Source: KOLA Democrats, Indians denounce GOP plan seeking to ban tribal governments MICHELLE DeARMOND, Associated Press Writer Saturday, July 8, 2000 (07-08) 17:25 PDT LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Outraged by a GOP effort in Washington state to abolish tribal governments and a threat by one party member to use military force against Indians, California Democrats and Indians on Saturday passed a resolution denouncing that state party's actions. The move to abolish tribal governments passed quietly last month in the form of a resolution at a Washington state Republican Party convention and attracted little attention until just days ago when news of it slowly spread through Washington media and an Indian news Web site. The resolution calls on the federal government to terminate tribal governments as unconstitutional because reservation residents who are non-Indian can't vote in tribal elections. Tribal governments are self-governing sovereign entities with a goverment-to-goverment relationship with the U.S. government. The California Democratic Party Native American Caucus passed its own resolution Friday denouncing the Washington state GOP's resolution, and the general assembly meeting Saturday in Los Angeles approved it. It was co-authored by Chairman Art Torres and Frank LaMere, a vice chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party and member of the Winnebago tribe there. ``It is an outrage. I call upon the Republican National Committee to publicly repudiate the wayward and blatantly racist actions of the Washington Republican party,'' LaMere said. ``It is divisive to even speak of turning our military against our own. That's what they have done in Washington and they need to be ashamed,'' said LaMere, who lost a brother in the Vietnam War. LaMere and California tribal leaders are trying to generate support from other politicians across the country in denouncing the Washington state GOP resolution. A Republican National Committee spokesperson did not immediately have a reaction Saturday, but Democrats and Republicans alike have said they doubt the Washington resolution would make it into the national GOP platform. The resolution's main author has said he wants party delegates to try to insert a similar measure into the national GOP platform and threatened to use the U.S. military to battle any tribes who would fight an abolition of their governments. Washington GOP officials have been unable to explain how they intended to carry out the resolution, and calls left for officials Saturday were not immediately returned. The main author of the resolution, John Fleming, has been unavailable for further comment. He did not immediately return a phone call Saturday. Fleming lives within the Swinomish Reservation in Washington, but is a non-Indian, and is active in organizations opposing treaty rights. The resolution comes amid growing controversy there over reservation rules affecting non-Indians, ranging from hunting privileges to liquor sales. Despite skepticism that Fleming's resolution has much likelihood of getting national support, California Indians don't want to leave anything to chance. They already are calling on politicians and writing letters about the resolution. ``I couldn't believe it that in the year 2000 that this type of racist attitude was able to get the support,'' said Mary Ann Andreas, Morongo tribal chairwoman. ``I would be horrified to find out that these people knew'' what they were doing. Beth Jensen, chairwoman of the Washington state GOP platform committee, has said the Fleming resolution was barely discussed and admitted she was unfamiliar with the issue. The committee considered 29 resolutions in two hours, and there wasn't time to discuss them, she has said. LaMere scoffed at suggestions ignorance might explain the party's actions. ``Involvement in the political process and in all those processes that govern our lives requires commitment and total attention. If they can't do the job right, they should not embark upon the endeavor at all,'' he said. ``There was reckless disregard. They can't hide from that fact.'' === [source: NativeNews; Sun, 09 Jul 2000 12:28:13 -0400] GOP Politicians Break With Platform on Tribes http://www.yakima-herald.com/cgi-bin/liveique.acgi$rec=13745?home Published in the Herald-Republic on Sunday, July 9, 2000 By MIKE BARENTI YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC From state representatives to U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton, there's little support from local Republican politicians for a state GOP resolution calling for the abolition of tribal governments. "He absolutely disagrees that we should do away with tribal governments," Gorton spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman said of a platform resolution passed with little attention during the GOP's state convention in Spokane last month. Tribes have the right to govern their own members, but Gorton doesn't think tribes can govern nontribal members living on reservations, she said. Other Republicans share Gorton's opposition to the resolution. "I don't support it," said state Rep. Barbara Lisk, R-Zillah. It's important that the United States honor its obligations, including treaties with American Indian tribes, she said. Like many, Lisk said she wasn't aware of the portion of the platform calling for an end to tribal governments until she read about it in press reports. And Lisk said she isn't sure how that made it into the state party's platform. The resolution's main author was John Fleming, a delegate to the state convention from Skagit County, who uses the term "nonrepublican" to describe tribal governments. The resolution calls on the federal government to "immediately take whatever steps necessary to terminate all such nonrepublican forms of government on Indian reservations." There's always been controversy over treaty interpretation, but it doesn't mean tribal governments need to be abolished, said state Rep. Bruce Chandler, R-Granger. "The issues we're facing right now can be resolved within the confines of the treaty," Chandler said. "We are a government of laws," said U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings. The possibility of a court fight between the Yakama Nation and the state over the tribe's plan to ban alcohol on the reservation probably will help clarify what authority tribal government has over nontribal members, he said. Passed in March, the ban takes effect on Sept. 17. The Yakamas say it applies to private lands owned by nontribal members. The courts are there to clarify what are legitimate gray areas of tribal authority, Hastings said. "We obviously have to respect tribal rights and treaty rights," Hastings said. It's comments like those that make the resolution almost a nonissue for Yakama Nation leaders. On a scale of one to 10, with one being most important and 10 least important, the resolution is about a 141Ú2 for Yakama leaders, said Jerry Meninick, vice chairman of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council. "I think the Yakama Nation would be alarmed if that was the voice of the United States," Meninick said. Instead, the resolution represents the view of a small group of people that don't have the authority to abolish tribal governments, he said. "What would the reaction be if we attempted to abolish the enabling act of Washington state?" asked Meninick, who called the resolution simply an attempt to play to the interest of groups in conflict with Indian tribes. While Republican politicians distanced themselves from the resolution, at least one group in the Lower Valley is embracing it. The STAND-UP Committee, which opposes the Yakama Nation's alcohol ban, and also its attempt to form an electric utility and the possibility tribal control of two Columbia River dams, wants all political parties to include similar language in their platforms, said Elaine Willman, who has helped organize STAND-UP. The group is nonpartisan, she said. "We do support the concept of one nation under God," Willman said. Programs to help Indians are fine, she said. "Where it goes awry is where there's a special population whose benefits come at the direct harm of another population." That's the case with Indian tribes, she said. STAND-Up plans to lobby Congress and local politicians on the matter. Tribes should become private organizations similar to a nonprofit agency, Willman said. Washington isn't the only state where groups are calling for an end to tribal governments, said Deward Walker, an anthropology professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder who studies Indian issues, including some involving the Yakama Nation. "They're all over the West," he said. While Congress has the power to abolish tribal governments and eliminate reservations, that's not something most people support, Walker said. Federal support for tribal self-government has waxed and waned over the years, Walker said. In 1934, Congress passed a law helping set up tribal governments. But in the late 1940s and early 1950s policy shifted into what's sometimes called the termination era, he said. Reservations, such as southern Oregon's Klamath, were done away with and Congress passed the Indian Relocation Act, which encouraged Indians to leave reservations and move to cities. When John F. Kennedy became president, federal policy became friendlier to Indians, Walker said. Policy shifted again under the Reagan administration, he said. "It goes in cycles," Walker said. But there's always some opposition to tribal governments in certain areas. "Some people have the idea that Indians will go away -- they'll become interesting museum pieces," he said.