We are writing to correct factual errors in the recent editorial entitled, ”Disenrollment and Community Building,” [Vol. 27, Iss. 36]. The ”two ladies” referred to in the article are Charlotte Berna and Roselind Quairm, who are Tachi Yokut. The editorial states that over many years the two women gave tribal leaders a ”hard time” and engaged in lawsuits against tribal actions. This is untrue. Attorneys for the Tachi Yokut Tribe admitted in court that the two women were disenrolled and banned only because they went to see a lawyer for advice about sexual harassment and a possible wrongful discharge. After a contentious letter by their local attorney (but unknown to these women), the tribe, at a regular General Council meeting and without prior notice or due process, voted to disenroll and banish them.
The article misstates that there were legal actions in state courts. [The women] never brought any state court actions. After a year of failed attempts to get back in the tribe, through their direct appeals, Ms. Berna and Ms. Quair asked for help from us, Indian attorneys Patrick Romero Guillory of San Francisco and law professor Paul Harris. They filed just one action in federal court under the Indian Civil Rights Act which they were forced to do because they had no other recourse. Counter to the statement in the article, the court did in fact grant jurisdiction over the tribe’s banishment order (see Quair v. Sisco, 359 F. Supp. 2d 948 E.D. Cal. 2004) while dismissing another part of the case. However, in the spirit of reconciliation, the attorneys offered to dismiss the case if the tribe agreed to let them and the women appear before the General Council and make a presentation for reinstatement. After statements by Ms. Berna and Ms. Quair and one by Mr. Guillory on the importance of Indian citizenship, the tribe voted to allow the women to return.
The article seems to support the notion of disenrollment as one of a tribe’s only remaining powers. We disagree. Simply put, we believe that being born into a tribe is a birthright. It is a birthright that a tribal administration should have no power to revoke or destroy. Revoking tribal membership is the same as losing one’s citizenship. The federal courts have said about revoking one’s citizenship: ”It is a form of punishment more primitive than torture, for it destroys for the individual the political existence that was centuries in the development.” (Poodry v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians 85 F.3d 874 2d. Cir. 1996). We find that Indian tribal sovereignty should act as a shield to protect and enhance the tribe’s inherent powers; it should never be used as a sword to destroy the lives of its own people.
– Patrick Romero Guillory
Paul HarrisAttorneys at LawDolores Park Law Offices
San Francisco, Calif.