Carole E. Goldberg, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who specializes in the study of tribal sovereignty and federal-Indian policy, says while amendments can be good for tribal nations instead of voting out tribal court judges, caution must be considered when it comes to relying on referendums to determine critical issues, such as defining tribal identity.
“In California, state initiative measures have sometimes helped break political deadlocks and register strongly held voter sentiment, as in the case of the tribal gaming initiatives,” she says. “But they also open up the possibility of law being made on the basis of misinformation, public relations campaigns and heavy financial investments by narrow interests. In conducting its own referenda and initiatives, Indian country could benefit from studying this experience at the state level.”
Littlefield says the results of the Cherokee referendum could end up costing the tribes federal funding. “They’ve started down a slippery slope like the Seminoles did when they removed Freedmen from their rolls,” he says. In 2000, the Seminoles re-admitted the Freedmen back when the federal government cut off funding. The same could happen to the Cherokee if the U.S. government determines the tribe violated the 1866 Treaty.
--Mark Anthony Rolo
There are currently 8 comments on this story.
Click here to post a comment.
© Copyright 2005 by DiverseEducation.com
