Like half the eligible voters in the United States, many Native people do not go to the polls. But over the last five to 10 years, Indian country has become increasingly engaged in the American political process as more tribal members realize how much is at stake.
Some affluent tribes have joined the ranks of big donors to the major parties, others have pushed to register more voters and launched campaigns to get them to the polls.
Unquestionably, the next leader of the world’s only superpower will exert tremendous control over the lives of Native Americans, and to some extent, other Indigenous peoples worldwide. The new president will decide how much federal funding to appropriate for tribal programs, how much White House access will be afforded to Indian nations, and whether there will be support or subversion of tribal sovereignty.
The next president could appoint as many as three Supreme Court justices, who will decide important cases regarding tribal land and water rights, religious and cultural protections, challenges to Indian gaming and a wide array of other issues. The appointment of more conservative judges could seriously undermine protections for Indian country and erode significant gains made over the last century.
The Grand Old Party
Texas Gov. George W. Bush’s comments on the campaign trail caused many Native people to worry that a Bush administration would set federal Indian policy back a hundred years. “My view is that state law reigns supreme when it comes to the Indians, whether it be gambling or any other issue,” Bush said last fall, ignoring long-standing treaty rights and constitutional law.
His defenders insist it was just political rhetoric. “What you heard was Gov. Bush responding to a question as a governor, not as president,” said Rep. J. D. Hayworth, co-chairman of the congressional Native American Caucus and a Republican whose district includes the 230,000-member Navajo Nation.
Still, in mid-August, asked to provide Bush’s views on Native American issues, his campaign staff distributed a cursory two-paragraph statement supporting self-determination and tribal control.
Apesanahkwat, chairman of the Menominee Nation of Wisconsin and a lifelong Republican, said he opposes Democratic initiatives that have perpetuated Indian people’s dependence on the government. “It goes against who we are as Native people. Traditionally, we were always self-sufficient. The Republican philosophy that government should not be involved in subsidizing people’s lifestyles is similar to our traditional decentralized forms of governance.”
Richard Milanovich, chairman of the Agua Caliente Tribe in Palm Springs, Calif., agrees. “The Republican Party ideology is one of self-sufficiency and self-determination.”
But Milanovich said he worries that under a Bush administration, successful Indian gaming ventures like the one his tribe operates will come under further attack. “I don’t think Bush really gets tribal sovereignty and I’m afraid he’ll side with states when it comes to Indian issues, particularly on gaming issues. He may make a good president for the rest of the country, but I’m not sure he’ll be good for Indian country.”
In the Lone Star State, Bush gets mixed, but mostly negative reviews for his relationships with the three tribes who remain there: the Tigua Pueblo of Ysleta del Sur, the Kickapoo and the Alabama-Coushatta. Tom Diamond, an attorney who represents all three tribes, said Bush is “downright dangerous” to tribal sovereignty.
Last September, Texas courts sued the Tigua, calling the operations illegal, and attempted to shut down the casino after six years in operation.
Diamond says that since Bush took office in 1994, he has repeatedly tried to convince former Attorney General Dan Morales to close the Tigua’s casino near El Paso. But Morales refused to bring any action against the Tigua, noting that the tribe’s gaming ordinance was fashioned after the state’s own statute allowing Texas to operate one of the largest lotteries in the country. Bush then turned to the U.S. attorney for Texas to bring suit against the Tigua. The request was declined.
After a new attorney general, John Cornyn, was elected in 1998, Bush pushed the suit again, and the case is now pending in federal court.
Diamond accuses Bush of bringing a “political suit” against the Tigua to appeal to conservative, religious-right voters in east Texas who see gaming as an evil that must be stamped out. “He simply refuses to recognize that we are a governmental entity just like the state is. Instead, he treats us like we’re ordinary citizens, not sovereign nations whose governments precede the formation of the United States of America,” Diamond said.
Despite his anti-gambling stance, campaign records show that Bush accepted a $100,000 contribution from businessman Richard Rainwater, whose company owns 5,000 slot machines in Las Vegas and 800 video poker machines in Louisiana.
In July, a federal appeals court ruled that the U.S. government was responsible for the loss of 2.8 million acres of Alabama-Coushatta land in Texas. Attorney Ray Ramirez of the Native American Rights Fund said the federal government will likely have to pay a substantial monetary award based on the value of oil and timber removed from the land.
Whether or not Bush pushes the Republican Congress to appropriate funds for a settlement will tell Indian country where he stands on Native rights.
Tribes in Texas and elsewhere worry about what impact Bush’s appointees to the Supreme Court and other federal courts may have on tribes’ rights. “If we get a couple of conservative George Bush appointees opposed to tribal sovereignty, the Indian side of every issue is going to be doomed,” Diamond said. “If George Bush is elected president, we’re going to have to get ready to fight every battle there is, because we are not going to have a friend in the White House.”
On the Democratic ticket
In contrast, Vice President Al Gore appears to be the favored candidate for president among Native people nationally. In the last two elections, more than 85 percent of Indian ballots were cast for the Clinton/Gore ticket.
Sue Masten, chairperson of the Yurok Tribe of Northern California and president of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), credits the Democrats for providing basic support for Indian law and policy over the last eight years, for the executive order mandating government-to-government consultation with tribes and for historic efforts to increase funding to Indian country to meet treaty obligations.
Both President Clinton and Gore have staunchly opposed opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge for further oil development, as recently proposed by Bush. Instead they support releasing oil from the nation’s emergency reserves.
The Gwich’in Athabascan people from 15 remote villages on the North Slope issued new calls for international support to prohibit new drilling. “The caribou is not just what we eat, it is who we are,” said Sarah James, a community activist and member of the Gwich’in Steering Committee of Arctic Village.
“Our people and the caribou must not be sacrificed for the equivalent of less than a six-months supply of oil,” she said.
Turning out the vote
The greatest challenge facing Indian country this election season is getting Native people to vote. Unless tribes wage an effective outreach campaign to enroll thousands of young voters and push people to get to the polls, the Indian vote may not be a significant factor in the 2000 elections.
Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Council member Michael Thomas said the growing Native participation in the election process marks a turning point in American history. “It signifies both our economic and political emergence. We will no longer be ignored. You can be for us, or you can be against us, but we’re not going to be stoic, silent and marginalized,” he said. “We’re far more policy-based than partisan-based these days. We’re not religiously adherent to Democrats or Republicans.”
NCAI President Masten said, “The best thing tribes can do is to create some unity in Indian country and to let our people know how important this election is. We have to make a commitment to get out the vote.”
