Five tribes make treaty claims for U.S. House representation
Five tribes make treaty claims for U.S. House representation
As U.S. Congress ponders Cherokee Nation's push for legislative representation, more tribes assert their unique treaty representation rights.
WASHINGTON — As the U.S. House moves closer to deciding whether to seat a non-voting delegate to represent the Cherokee Nation — as called for under the unfulfilled 1835 Treaty of New Echota and also ratified later by an 1866 federal-tribal treaty — at least four more tribes are asserting their unique treaty rights in an effort to have their own U.S. delegates appointed to the lower chamber.
Several more tribes could have such treaty claims.
Some are already formally asserting their rights after the Cherokee Nation secured a Nov. 16 hearing before the U.S. House Rules Committee in the tribe’s ongoing effort to get tribal advocate Kim Teehee seated. She previously served as a top Native affairs advisor in the Obama White House and as a top advisor to former U.S. Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI).
EARLIER: Teehee secures House hearing in bid to become Cherokee U.S. congressional delegate
U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), chairman of the committee, shared during the hearing the names of four tribes claiming that they should also have non-voting congressional representatives.
They are the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, which asserts its rights under an 1830 federal-tribal treaty; the Delaware Nation, which asserts its rights under a 1778 federal-tribal treaty; and the Eastern Band of Cherokees and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians — both distinct federally-recognized tribes separate from the Cherokee Nation — which also assert their rights under the 1835 New Echota Treaty and the aforementioned 1866 treaty.
Legislators from both sides of the aisle seemed quite open to granting representation to the Cherokee Nation, as Article VII of the Treaty of New Echota appears clear in its plain language that the U.S. Congress agreed to seat a Cherokee delegate. It has been an unfulfilled promise for nearly 200 years.
The full hearing lasted approximately two hours, and no legislator raised outright objections, although some, including U.S. Rep Jaime Raskin (D-MD), raised procedural issues as to what committees such a delegate would ultimately sit on.
Both Democratic and Republican legislators said during the hearing that just because other tribes may or may not have valid legal claims to also having non-voting members join the House in the future, that fact alone shouldn’t be a reason to preclude Cherokee from getting one now.
McGovern said he has listened to “a number of concerns” from others, including tribal leaders and fellow legislators, but he remains “very sympathetic” to the Cherokee arguments for seating Teehee, stating there is a “strong case.”
U.S. Rep Tom Cole (R-OK), the ranking chairman of the committee, agreed through the course of the hearing that a Cherokee delegate should be seated, but he said it was important to examine the concerns of other tribes, as well as the issues of double representation; the Cherokee tribal council appointing Teehee, rather than its members voting on her; and issues pertaining to the duties of such a delegate and how it may change the “character” of the Congress overall.
Cole is a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation, and it was clear by the end of the hearing that he supports both the Cherokee’s right to a delegate and Teehee herself, calling her his friend — even though they come from opposing political backgrounds. He said a number of times that the final decision on this matter should be bipartisan.
Chuck Hoskin Jr., principal chairman of the Cherokee Nation, addressed some of the issues Cole highlighted.
Hoskin said it is his belief that the Cherokee Nation “alone” is party to the 1835 and 1866 treaties, and that the tribe’s constitution calls on its leaders to appoint a delegate, rather than hold an election to decide on the candidate.
Hoskin himself appointed Teehee in 2019, but she has remained unseated in the ensuing three years.
Hoskin further said he did not believe the House would open the “floodgates” to other tribes having designated seats in Congress if it approves Cherokee’s claim, as he believes his tribe does not have the right to claim the treaties of other tribes, nor do other tribes have the right to claim the treaties that impact the Cherokee Nation.
Another question that took center stage at the hearing was whether the House might be able to pass a resolution — as opposed to a more rigorous legislative statute — to seat a tribal delegate. Under such a resolution, the House could re-negotiate every two years whether the Cherokee Nation should continue having a delegate.
Hoskin said it would be fine with the tribe to re-negotiate every two years for its need for representation, but he did not believe that future Congresses would ever vote to eliminate the position if it is granted.
Lindsay Robertson, the director of the Center for the Study of American Indian Law and Policy at the University of Oklahoma, testified that he agreed formal legislation would not be required for the House to seat Teehee, and therefore the U.S. Senate and White House would not have to approve if the House took action by resolution.
Robertson suggested the House could proceed by seating Teehee and later see if there were any legal or other challenges, and then ultimately decide whether to pass legislation making the seat a permanent one.
As a non-voting House member, Teehee would be able to highlight issues and speak during hearings, but she would not get to vote on legislation, nor vote for leaders within the body.
Mainon Schwartz, a lawyer with the Congressional Research Service, noted during the hearing that legislation has always been used in the past when creating non-voting representatives of U.S. territories to Congress, but she said this was a unique situation. She added that some legal and procedural uncertainties could exist on equal protection or other grounds, but that such issues are not a certainty.
Legislators additionally asked if, since the Cherokee Nation is based in Oklahoma, whether appointing a delegate could end up giving the tribe's members double representation, since they already have congressional reps in the state.
Hoskin replied that the delegate would represent the needs of the Cherokee Nation and Indian Country, not the needs of the state.
Everyone in favor of moving forward with a delegate for Cherokee said time was of the essence. They want to get it done before the current Congress ends in January. Whether the votes are there remains to be seen.
The full written testimony from Hoskin, Robertson and Schwarz is here.
A sad shame the Navajo Nation isn't well represented unlike being the "Trailblazers" to US Ameri Indian Affairs in the 1960s/1970s/ early 80s (one generation).
Because 5 Tribes allied with the criminal rebel slavers 1861-1865 all legal authority of representing Individual Sovereignty, Rights or Claims are null & void. Clean hands? Further, The Indian Boundary Treaty/Act of 1832 & 1621 Boatmen's Trust supercedes any unlawful claims. An Indigenous Representative would have to be processed through AIC Chicago, IL.