King’s opposition to bill combating rape on tribal land questioned

The Tribal Law and Order Act, which bolsters American Indian law enforcement power to investigate rape and other crimes committed on tribal lands, is a “major step forward for justice in Indian country,” said Christina Blackcloud-Garcia, vice chair of the Iowa Democratic Party’s American Indian Caucus and member of the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi.

U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron

That’s why Blackcloud-Garcia was so disappointed that U.S. Rep. Steve King decided to oppose the measure, which was passed as an amendment to HR 725 on a 326-92 vote last week.

“It is a unfortunate Steve King and 91 other Republicans voted against a bill which will finally provide American Indians, who are victims of rape and other crimes on tribal land, the right to fight for justice and prosecute offenders,” she told The Iowa Independent.

King was the lone member of Iowa’s delegation to vote against the bill. Since that time, King’s office has refused numerous requests seeking comment about his vote.

The bill gave tribal police more authority in seeking prosecution of non-natives who commit crimes on tribal lands. In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tribal governments have no criminal jurisdiction over non-natives. So when a crime is committed, there’s something of a “jurisdictional vacuum,” said Sarah Deer, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma and an assistant professor at William Mitchell College of Law. Tribal police and state or federal authorities are forced to hash out who’s responsible and how to proceed with an investigation, she said

“What we find is that, by and large, in most communities, nobody really takes action,” Deer said in an interview with The Minnesota Independent’s Paul Schmelzer. “There’s not actually a legal loophole, but it’s a practical loophole.”

“The jurisdiction is just a huge mess,” she added. “It’s very confusing to determine who has ultimate authority to take on a felony level sex crime in Indian Country.”

This jurisdictional mess — or “maze of injustice,” as the title of a 2007 Amnesty International report co-authored by Deer puts it — ends up disproportionately hurting women. According to government statistics, one in three Native American women will be raped at some point in their lives, a rate that is more than double that for non-native women.

“I’d venture to say that’s a conservative estimate,” Deer said. “When I travel to Indian country and talk to women, they tell me, ‘Gosh, I  don’t know anyone in my community who hasn’t been raped.’”

More than 86 percent of rapes against Native American women are carried out by non-native men, most of them white, according to the Justice Department.

While King has been completely silent since his “no” vote, a few of the 92 Republicans who voted against the measure have explained their opposition.

The Colorado Independent caught up with Republican U.S. Reps. Mike Coffman and Doug Lamborn, who said they opposed the bill because it was rammed through on a voice vote instead of being carefully considered. A House committee originally passed a 10-page bill aimed at guarding authentic Native American artists from unfair competition waged by imitators. The Senate saw the bill as an opportunity to address the larger issue of ineffective law enforcement on tribal lands, and it became a more than 100-page bill with a price tag of roughly $1.1 billion over the next four years, although Deer says there is no mandatory spending.

Lamborn called it a “bloated spending bill” that should have been “given a fair and open debate on the House floor.”

The Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen talked with a Capitol Hill staffer about the GOP “no” votes, who offered a similar take.

House Republicans made essentially no substantive objections but simply complained about the process used to move quickly through the House (it was taken up directly on the floor after returning from the Senate, which ensured that the bill did not have to go through the Senate two times). There was lots of chatter that the opposition was simply designed to obstruct the effort — and deny House Democrats of the political benefits of achieving this accomplishment for tribal constituencies — but it’s of course hard to know what lies in people’s hearts.

Blackcloud-Garcia said King’s opposition is particular sad due to the fact that while there is no tribal land in King’s district, many of his constituents have relatives that reside on reservations in neighboring states or on the land of the Sac & Fox Tribe (Meskwaki Nation) in Iowa, the only federally recognized tribe in the Hawkeye State.

“As the Representative for the 5th District of Iowa, it is hoped Congressman King will always uphold justice for all citizens and tribal members in this country,” she said. “King’s vote against this bill is a reminder that some government representatives fail to be informed or turn a blind eye on treaties and trust obligations between tribes and the federal government which includes providing safe communities for American Indians.”

President Barack Obama will sign The Tribal Law and Order Act into law on Thursday.

—

The Minnesota Independent’s Paul Schmelzer and The Colorado Independent’s John Tomasic contributed to this story.