Every summer millions of people flock to Indian Country these trips are either work related, to "see the sights," spend some hard-earned cash in a tribal casino, or to find some sort of New Age experience. However, when these tourist come to the rez, they may be unaware that their rights are not the same as they were off the rez. An awareness of the rights and laws of a tribe before one travels to the reservation is nearly always necessary. If one is heading off to a rez in California, however, one needs to pay very close attention.
The deals that California Indian nations signed to bring Vegas-style casinos to their rez requires them to pay "all legitimate claims" to anyone injured on the Indian land. Critics of tribal governments have railed against the slow nature of tribal authorities and have charged that some tribes are seeking to circumvent these agreements. So vehement have the charges been, that some lawyers are filing suit claiming that the federal government has "stacked the deck" against their clients and has given the Indian nations the ability to nullify state gaming compact items. Gaming compacts (almost regardless of state) require tribes to waive "sovereign power" but the exact definition of that power varies from tribe to tribe and state to state.
In deciding these disputes, some tribes employ retired state judges while others adjudicate their own disputes in tribal court. One of the lead lawyers in the case is suing the state of California after her client's claim was rejected by the Barona Tribe. The client, a 93 year old woman who was knocked down and injured by a man running on the gaming floor. Why sue the state you may ask? Indian nations are sovereign nations and their ability to adjudicate claims of this nature were guaranteed by the federal government through any number of treaties. This Barona case will serve as an interesting example.
The tribal court is composed of members of the tribal council, the same body to which casino operators answer. Tribal lawyers claim that they oversee all rulings made by the council and that the entire justice system is fair on the rez. They stop short at allowing outside courts, such as the state courts, to review their decisions sighting issue of sovereignty. Council members claim that they effectively split their duties as tribal leaders and overseers of the 2000 slot machine casino.
The major conflict here, in my humble opinion, is the role that tribes have come to play in American life since they developed casino-gaming operations. Tribes in all "gaming" states employ large numbers of people (both Indian and non)and rake in fantastic amounts of money (especially those with nearby urban clients). Although the Pequot behemouth at Foxwoods is by no means the norm, tribally owned and operated gaming ventures have given Indian nations an unprecedented voice in the current state of affairs in their states. As sovereign nations, whose rights were and are supported by the United States federal government, shouldn't they be allowed to make and enforce their own decisions? Is the casino a convenient screen to hide behind and allow tribal officials to make corrupt policy? Should the states intervene and use the compacts as a pick to strip away tribal sovereignty?
No comments:
Post a Comment