
The Cherokee want a representative in Congress, taking up a 200-year-old promise - smacktoward
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/25/politics/cherokee-nation-congressional-delegate-treaty/
======
TMWNN
>Some organizations could mount legal challenges to the Cherokee Nation's push
for a delegate, Rosser added, potentially arguing that the move gives citizens
of the tribe more representation in Congress than non-indigenous US citizens.

This is going to prevent the representative from being seated. This is why
tribes opposed the Indian Citizen Act of 1924 [1] in the first place; they
were afraid that giving all Indians citizenship would fundamentally change the
nature of their relationship with the US government.

The Cherokee can't have it both ways. They can't have American
citizenship—and, thus, representation in Congress in Oklahoma or elsewhere—
_and_ an extra delegate of their own. Such exists in New Zealand, but that's
explicitly provided for by law, and it's controversial; the New Zealand First
Party,[2] which a few years ago held all seven Maori seats,[3] has a policy of
wanting to abolish said seats, and no longer runs candidates for them.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_First](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_First)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māori_electorates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māori_electorates)

~~~
pryce
It can be done. In New Zealand, our indigenous population (Māori) has New
Zealand citizenship, and has an opt-in seperate electoral roll which has 7
seats of the 120 seat parliament [1]. Māori citizens have the choice whether
to vote on the "General roll" or the "Māori roll".

This acts to ensure indigenous people always have a voice in parliament, and
is seen as fulfillment of the treaty obligations on which this country is
founded. This -combined with "mixed member proportional" style voting largely
prevents any attempts at racist gerrymandering.

In practice, while the number of seats may not be large, MMP governments
frequently are made from coalitions between parties, meaning that both our two
largest parties are interested in contesting either the seats themselves or
securing an alliance with whichever smaller party might win them, meaning the
presence of these seats does translate into actual policy concessions to our
indigenous people.

I should note here that at the time of its historical origin in 1867, the
seperate Māori roll was compulsory for Māori, and was intended as a way to
disenfranchise Māori by proportionally reducing their influence.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māori_electorates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māori_electorates)

~~~
disordinary
I always thought the Māori electorate was a way to give Māori voting rights
while acknowledging that they didn't have the same concept of land ownership
as the colonists. At the time voting was tied to land ownership. The Māori
electorate is tied to race and not land ownership like the general electorate
was.

~~~
pryce
For reference, the Māori seats were created in 1867 during the period where
much Māori land was confiscated by govt, provoking wars, and the property
ownership requirement for voting in the general roll (basically for "white"
people, which in NZ are now referred to as "Pakehā") was scrapped a little
over a decade later in 1879; while for almost the next century Māori were
forced to participate on only the Māori roll, determining only handful of
available seats -effectively forcing them into underrepresentation - until
1976.

If we were to say the intent was to "give Māori voting rights", I think it
could be far more fairly characterized as "give Māori some voting rights but
systematically ensure that this counts for substantially less than their non-
Māori peers".

------
DoreenMichele
I hope this happens. Native Americans have unique challenges. A thing I ran
across on twitter: Native Americans were being de facto disenfranchised
because they couldn't use a PO Box as an address for purposes of voter
registration and the reservations they were on only had PO Boxes as addresses
for the residents.

I am guessing that this wasn't conscious and intentional. I'm not suggesting
some conspiracy theory to purposely disenfranchise them. But the sorts of
issues Indigenous peoples face are not faced by most other Americans and they
at least need a voice to begin educating the powers that be about ways in
which their reality is overlooked and how this negatively impacts them.

~~~
rayiner
This varies by state, but note that, in North Dakota, for example, the 911
coordinator can have an address assigned in a quick process:
[https://vip.sos.nd.gov/pdfs/Portals/VotingInformationforTrib...](https://vip.sos.nd.gov/pdfs/Portals/VotingInformationforTribalMembers.pdf).
Voting in places that lack infrastructure people tend to take for granted
(fixed addresses) definitely poses challenges that state officials must
address. I suspect at least with larger reservations, progress could be made
by delegating more control over voting and polling places to tribal
governments.

At the same time (as reflected in the comments below), people unfairly deride
any sort of voter identification requirement as a conscious attempt at
disenfranchisement, when in reality U.S. states have some of the laxest voter
identification requirements in the world:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_Identification_laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_Identification_laws).
I voted recently in Maryland, and I was actually quite shocked and a little
perturbed how little verification was performed at the polling site. (I didn't
have to show ID, just wrote down my address. Anyone could've pretended to be
me.)

~~~
DoreenMichele
I was homeless for a few years. I'm abundantly familiar with how lacking the
usual assumed default living arrangements can negatively impact one's life.

I'm also quite clear that most of it was not some intentional effort to make
my life unnecessarily harder. I certainly ran into genuine prejudice and
discrimination, but most problems I wrestled with incidentally happened to be
more challenging because my life didn't neatly fit standard assumptions.

I've generally found it helpful in life to _not assume malice_ where
ignorance/obliviousness are sufficient explanations.

------
Ididntdothis
I like this just for the fact of having people in Congress that aren’t either
Democrat or Republican.

~~~
Digory
[ed. I stand corrected. Article says they have an Obama-administration
official lined up.]

Odds are the Cherokee would appoint a de facto Republican. They're largely
conservative and entrepreneurial Oklahomans. The Cherokee Nation runs a bunch
of gambling, energy, and defense contracting businesses.

It's beyond amusing to me that Elizabeth Warren tried to claim in to the
Cherokee; that tribe had almost no inclination to overlook her stretching.

~~~
BurningFrog
A lot of minority people have quite conservative values, but vote Democratic
because they perceive Republicans as the party that hates them because of
their race.

If the GOP could get a half believable message out there that they're
actually, really and honestly, a conservative patriotic free market party for
all races and religions, I think they could completely dominate US elections
for decades.

But, much like the Democrats, they just can't help being really bad at seeming
decent and competent.

~~~
paggle
You’re not counting the votes they would lose if they tacked away from
explicit racial animus. It’s more than a few.

------
lidHanteyk
We owe voting rights and statehood to the native nations we colonized during
the past three centuries.

~~~
natalyarostova
Why? Why does a conquering group owe the people they conquered anything at
all?

~~~
Gaelan
Because we recognize that we were evil and want to make amends.

~~~
natalyarostova
I wasn't evil. Were you? Human history is littered with blood and conquest.
Trying to settle the score seems pointless; we should instead (I propose)
recognize that we are all individuals without historical guilt and work
together to build a better future.

~~~
pryce
Ideas don't exist in a vacuum; they emerge from concrete relations of
production and power. They serve or hinder the interests of people and groups.

'Wiping the slate clean' is a noble path to peace when both sides have done
something wrong; it is a far less noble idea when the injustice was severely
one-sided, instead it can actually make the injustice _worse_.

Suppose someone had -unprovoked- attacked you violently and and taken your
home and possessions, and then moved his family into what used to be your
home. Then suppose his family, still living in that house and intending to
continue doing so, suddenly proposed 'wiping the slate clean'. Would you be
right in suspecting their proposal of 'wiping the slate clean' to be in this
case completely self-serving?

------
niceworkbuddy
For comparison: I live in Poland. Here legislative power is called "Sejm" and
deputies are selected in elections (as usual in typical European country).
However, there are two places in Sejm, for German minorities deputies. There
are barely few thousand Germans living in Poland but in location surrounding
Opole city. These people have two representatives in our Sejm.

------
RickJWagner
Interesting. I never knew about the non-voting representatives before.

~~~
smacktoward
You would if you lived in Washington, D.C. Due to its unique status as a
“Federal district” ceded to the government by Maryland and Virginia, the only
Congressional representation the 700,000 residents of D.C. get is a single
non-voting delegate:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia%27s_at-
la...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia%27s_at-
large_congressional_district)

(Despite this, they are of course taxed the same as everyone else, creating a
weird modern-day case of “taxation without representation”:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation#District_of_Columbia))

~~~
5555624
>Due to its unique status as a “Federal district” ceded to the government by
Maryland and Virginia,

It should be noted that Virginia's portion was given back -- retrocession --
in 1847. This is why one option that comes up for providing voting rights is
to give the non-federal government portions of DC back to Maryland. This would
keep the Federal District separate from any state; but, residents of what is
currently DC would have voting representation.

What was Virgina's contribution is Arlington County, VA.

------
ddingus
I am in favor. Also, small part Cherokee.

~~~
protomyth
Do you know your blood quota? They tend to be really unhappy with people who
claim ancestry without being on the tribal rolls.

~~~
Aloha
quantum, blood quantum.

~~~
protomyth
The folks around me say quota. I think it might have slipped into slang. I'll
check my letter to see what it says in the morning.

