Cherokee Nation wants to send a delegate to the House

[emzie]

In 1835, the Cherokee Nation was promised a delegate in Congress as part of the same treaty – Treaty of New Echota – that led to the death of thousands on the Trail of Tears. Nearly 200 years later, the Cherokee are still fighting to make that promise a reality.

“The Treaty of New Echota is a living, valid treaty, and the Delegate provision is intact because it has never been abrogated,” Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin wrote in testimony submitted to the House Committee on Rules on Nov. 16, 2022. “As the Supreme Court has made clear on multiple occasions, and as the landmark McGirt decision reaffirmed, lapse of time cannot divest Indian nations of their treaties and treaty rights.”

McGirt is the 2020 Supreme Court case that reaffirmed that the reservation boundaries of Muscogee (Creek) Nation survived Oklahoma statehood and remain in effect today. This decision, coupled with a follow-up decision, upheld the reservation status of the Cherokee Nation and four other tribes.

If the Cherokee Nation is successful in its bid, Kimberly Teehee, the nominated delegate, will join delegates representing the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and other U.S. territories as a nonvoting member of the House.

Full article: https://theconversation.com/cheroke...its-an-idea-older-than-congress-itself-191738

The treaty article in question:

"Shall" is a bit of a weasel word. As I read this, the Cherokee are entitled to a delegate in the House only if Congress decides to gives them one. Personally, I'd like to see this go further: Australia, Canada, and the US should adopt something like the Maori electorates in New Zealand.

 

[Zelig]

Treaty seems pretty clear to me.

I don’t know that the practice of awarding delegates (or reps or w/e) to special interest groups is optimal/desired in either this case or in general, but if the treaty is on the books, it should be followed. (And if they’re non-voting, who in particular is opposed to this anyway?) The appropriate way to not follow it is to amend the treaty, not to disregard it.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

Including at least one delegate seems both wise and just.

 

[Ajidica]

Since recognized tribes are officially sovereign governments, wouldn’t this be like Canada sending a delegate to the US House?
And I’m assuming in the intervening years other treaties superseded this in the relation between the Cherokee nation and the us government.

 

[Zardnaar]

Note when we went proportional in 1996 the recommendation was to eliminate the Maori seats.

They got grandfathered in from FPTP.

Anyway why/how they set them up.

Setting up the Māori seats

Early Māori representation in New Zealand elections.

nzhistory.govt.nz

Proportional

Change in the 20th century

The fall and rise of Māori seats in the 20th century.

nzhistory.govt.nz

 

[danjuno]

DC and the territories have House Delegates (they can vote in committee, but not on the floor), so I don't see why not.

Non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Fippy]

No offense but do we need a new thread for all those US politics topics?

 

[danjuno]

I don't recall a rule one way or the other. It makes sense that the largest majority-English speaking country would be heavily represented on an English-language forum.

 

[Lexicus]

No offense but do we need a new thread for all those US politics topics?

 

[Fippy]

Okay okay

 

[Angst]

Since recognized tribes are officially sovereign governments, wouldn’t this be like Canada sending a delegate to the US House?
And I’m assuming in the intervening years other treaties superseded this in the relation between the Cherokee nation and the us government.

cherokee may have a technically sovereign government, but they're still promised a seat that the us gov hasn't upholded.

like, the closest i can get to this from the pov of a dane, greenland has a seat in the danish government, and they still process domestic policy as sovereignly as possible. it's one of those "it's complicated" situations in regards to sovereignty and territory, and i don't think equivocating it with canada is true to the matter at hand. there's also a lot of entrenched treaties to this day that ruin native life by virtue of us policy (some deadlocks as to territorial rights, for one) that would arguably be dealt with much easier if they got parliamental representation.

that said, the us government kind of has a lot of issues just getting basic stuff done. so even if they got representation, i'm questioning whether it will concretely help much. but they should have representation due to the numerous overlapping entrenchments that concretely screw over native territory.

 

[Lexicus]

wouldn’t this be like Canada sending a delegate to the US House?

For a variety of reasons, no

 

[Arwon]

DC and the territories have House Delegates (they can vote in committee, but not on the floor), so I don't see why not.

Non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Residents of all territories should have voting representation in both houses.

This is one of those early edition bugs in the US, something they messed up creating the first modern federation and didn't subsequently patch.

It's a degree of disenfranchisement which no other federation amongst nearly 30 others in the world has subsequently replicated, except technically the United Arab Emirates, but the trick there is it's a federation of absolute monarchies so  nobody can vote.

 

[Arwon]

Personally, I'd like to see this go further: Australia, Canada, and the US should adopt something like the Maori electorates in New Zealand.

My own formulation for Australia would be to constitute first nations peoples as a "non territorial" state for the purpose of elections, electing 12 senators and however many house of representatives seats equivalent to population, probably about 7 or 8 since they're larger than Tasmania.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people would enrol either in their residence like normal, or in the first nations roll, like in the NZ system. And that's using the state formulation just for electoral purposes, not suggesting a single state equivalent government be created as well.

Actually having a recognised voice and representatives that government needs to deal with would be the first step though. We don't have the same sorry of recognised governance and sovereignty other countries do, so the current first step being pushed is a pretty modest one, a voice to parliament.

 

[Takhisis]

My own formulation for Australia would be to constitute first nations peoples as a "non territorial" state for the purpose of elections, electing 12 senators and however many house of representatives seats equivalent to population, probably about 7 or 8 since they're larger than Tasmania.

So would they be a special country-wide or ‘at-large’ constituency then?

 

[Arwon]

Essentially yes. Well, the senate would work like that because it's multi member STV just in general. The house seats would presumably either be districted to single member preferential voting, or I guess could just make them at large STV seats as well if distributing boundaries becomes problematic.

 

[Takhisis]

But would the aboriginals also vote in the regular geographic-based constituencies or would they be excluded from those?

 

[Arwon]

Borrowing the Māori roll idea, ie individual choice which to enroll in.

 

[danjuno]

Residents of all territories should have voting representation in both houses.

This is one of those early edition bugs in the US, something they messed up creating the first modern federation and didn't subsequently patch.

It's a degree of disenfranchisement which no other federation amongst nearly 30 others in the world has subsequently replicated, except technically the United Arab Emirates, but the trick there is it's a federation of absolute monarchies so  nobody can vote.

My original comment was along the lines of what the likeliest crumb of concession is to be in the current climate. As someone from the DC area, you don't have to tell me it's an embarrassment how the current system is.

 

[amadeus]

I was not aware of this provision but given the wording it sounds like Congress has the mandate to seat a delegate when it pleases.