Modern Tribal Governments Explained: Ep 20 of Crash Course Native American History

Key Concepts

• Sovereignty: The inherent right of Native nations to self-govern.
• Tribal Governments: Governing bodies of federally recognized tribes, distinct and separate entities.
• Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934: Legislation aimed at re-affirming tribal sovereignty but also encouraging tribes to adopt majority-rule governance structures.
• Consensus Governance: A traditional tribal governance model where leaders hold community discussions to reach solutions that incorporate everyone's perspectives.
• Majority Rule Governance: A system where decisions are made based on the option receiving the most votes.
• Modern Tribal Government Structure: Typically includes an organizing document (like a constitution), an elected Tribal Council (legislative) and Chairperson (executive), and often tribal court systems and police.
• Hybrid Tribal Government Structure: Blends traditional and modern governance elements, such as combining elected officials with traditionally selected leaders or incorporating consensus in some areas and majority rule in others.
• Self-Determination Era: The current period where the U.S. government aims to support tribal sovereignty and repair past damages, leading to more direct tribal involvement in public services.
• Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Federal law allowing tribes to operate gaming operations on their land through compacts with states.

Tribal Sovereignty and Governance

Conflict with State Governor Kristi Noem

In 2024, Native nations in South Dakota took a strong stance against Governor Kristi Noem due to her actions, which included removing Native American history from state teaching standards, making disparaging remarks about Native children ("hopeless"), and accusing tribal leaders of collaborating with drug cartels. In response, all nine Native nations in South Dakota banned Governor Noem from entering their tribal lands, demonstrating their sovereign right to control access to their territories. This incident highlights the power of tribal governments to assert their authority, even against state officials.

The Nature of Tribal Governments

Tribal governments are the governing bodies of federally recognized tribes, operating as separate and distinct entities. They possess the inherent right to self-govern, known as sovereignty. This sovereignty grants them the authority to make their own laws on their own land, while also being subject to certain federal laws. This creates a complex and often dynamic relationship with federal and state governments, characterized by negotiation and occasional conflict.

Historical Context and the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA)

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), passed in 1934 during the New Deal era, was an attempt by the U.S. government to address the severe poverty, cultural disruption from boarding schools, and land loss experienced by Native nations. The IRA aimed to re-affirm tribal sovereignty, but it also imposed a preference for a U.S.-style majority rule governance system. Policymakers at the time believed that traditional Native governments, which often operated by consensus, were not suited for modern demands.

• Consensus Governance: In this model, leaders engage in community discussions to understand and incorporate the concerns of all members, striving for solutions that blend diverse perspectives and foster cooperation.
• Majority Rule Governance: This system involves selecting an option based on which receives the most votes, potentially overlooking the concerns of minority groups.

While many tribes valued their consensus-based systems, the U.S. government withheld IRA funding until tribes adopted majority-rule structures. Out of 258 tribes, 77 rejected the IRA plan, while 181 reorganized under its provisions.

Structures of Tribal Governments

Following the IRA, tribal governments generally adopted one of two main structures:

1. Modern Structure:

   • Typically involves an organizing document, such as a constitution, approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
   • Features an elected Tribal Council (legislative branch) and a Tribal Chairperson (executive branch).
   • These bodies negotiate with federal, state, and local governments on behalf of the tribe.
   • Many modern tribal governments also have their own court systems and tribal police forces.
   • This structure mirrors the U.S. government's separation of powers with legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and operates on democratic elections and majority votes for lawmaking.

2. Hybrid Structure:

   • This structure blends traditional and modern governance elements, varying significantly between tribes.
   • Examples include:
     • Decision-making through both elected officials and traditionally selected leaders.
     • Incorporating consensus in some governance aspects and majority rule in others.
   • Case Study: The Crow Tribe: The Crow Tribe, which initially rejected the IRA, has established executive, legislative, and judicial branches. However, they have retained their commitment to consensus through a General Council comprising all adult tribal members. Any member can propose legislation, and initiatives require approval from at least two-thirds of the Council, reflecting a strong emphasis on collective agreement.

Functions and Powers of Tribal Governments

Tribal governments are responsible for governing their citizens within their territories. Their responsibilities include:

• Defining tribal citizenship.
• Controlling land use.
• Overseeing tribal schools, utilities, roads, and communication networks.
• Issuing business licenses and collecting sales tax within their borders, similar to local or state governments.

The Self-Determination Era and Bureaucratic Challenges

The current self-determination era signifies the U.S. government's commitment to supporting tribal sovereignty and rectifying historical injustices. This has led to increased tribal involvement in managing public services. However, tribal agencies often face significant bureaucratic hurdles and "red tape" when seeking federal support.

• Example: National Tribal Broadband Grant: While grants like the National Tribal Broadband Grant aim to provide reservations with high-speed internet access (crucial for distance learning, remote work, and telehealth), the funding is dispersed across seven different federal agencies. This fragmentation makes it difficult for tribal governments to identify and access eligible funding.

Federal Consultation and its Limitations

Federal agencies are mandated to consult with tribal governments and seek their input before implementing policies that affect them. They are also expected to provide compensation if compliance with new rules incurs costs for tribes. However, this consultation process is often an ideal rather than a consistent practice.

• Case Study: Dakota Access Pipeline (2016): The construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline threatened the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation's drinking water supply due to its proximity to Lake Oahe. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approved the pipeline's route without consulting the tribe. The Standing Rock Sioux sued to halt construction, but their legal challenge was unsuccessful. While the federal government requested a voluntary buffer zone around the lake, the company did not comply, and the pipeline was built and continues to operate. This case exemplifies the challenges tribes face when federal actions impact their lands and resources, and the limitations of federal consultation.

Asserting Sovereignty in Practice

Tribal governments are increasingly asserting their sovereignty and resisting efforts to curtail it.

• Gaming Operations: Many tribes operate casinos under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which allows them to enter into gaming compacts with states. Federal law generally supersedes conflicting state laws in this area.
  • Example: Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt (2019): Governor Stitt attempted to prevent tribes from automatically renewing their gaming compacts, which could have effectively ended them. Federal courts ruled in favor of the tribes, upholding federal law over the state's actions.

The assertion of tribal sovereignty is a complex and ongoing process, often requiring tribes to challenge corporations and the federal government on multiple fronts. This constant adaptation and negotiation are essential for modern tribal governments to maintain their independence and protect their interests.

Conclusion

Tribal governments operate within a unique and complex framework, balancing their inherent sovereignty with federal laws and regulations. They have evolved from traditional consensus-based systems to modern and hybrid structures, all while striving to govern their citizens, manage their lands, and provide essential services. The ongoing assertion of their sovereignty, as demonstrated by actions against state governors and challenges to federal policies, highlights their resilience and determination to maintain their distinct identities as nations within a larger nation. The fight for self-determination and the preservation of their rights continues to shape the landscape of tribal governance.