Sovereignty
While tribes retain concurrent criminal jurisdiction in many areas under PL 280,
that jurisdiction has been impeded by PL 280. Furthermore, under PL 280 tribes must
always share criminal jurisdiction with an outside government, whereas on non-PL 280
reservations tribes have exclusive jurisdiction over non-major crimes committed by one
Indian against another and Indian victimless crimes. Thus, PL 280 was a move away from
general principles of the government-to-government relationship between tribes and the
federal government. The law was viewed by many as an infringement on inherent
sovereignty of the affected tribes. The third most commonly cited reason surrounded
these issues of sovereignty. Eight out of the 30 respondents gave sovereignty as one of
the key reasons for retrocession. Responses were categorized as “Sovereignty” when
they mentioned tribal control, local control, or sovereignty.
We wanted to have jurisdiction; we’re our own tribe and we’re our own
people ... we wanted to have a say-so in what happened to our own tribal
members.
That was just the biggest thing ... just to try to get ahold of our future, to
have our own people judging each other when they broke the law.
Some respondents saw retrocession as an important step in the evolution of tribal
self-government:
447
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
If you want to be a government, you’ve got to have control of these things.
It’s hard to outsource police and court system when you’re trying to be
sovereign. Because you’ll never grow up.
Well, they wanted to regain control of their lives and their future. That’s
really what it boiled down to. If you’re going to exercise ... sovereignty
and self-determination, it is pretty hard to do that if you’re under the
thumb of state jurisdiction. So [the Tribal Chairman] was a very visionary
leader, and he saw this as a central doorway to the future for the [Tribal]
people.
They had to get this done so they could unfold their culture. You
know, develop the kind of court they wanted, and the kind of community
and law enforcement system they wanted. And take control of their lives
and their destiny.
Cultural Insensitivity
Two respondents cited cultural insensitivity as a key factor in the decision to retrocede.
The other thing was people getting frustrated with the lack of knowledge
of the culture and respect for the people. Local knowledge for the bad
actors and who people could take real seriously about the danger of certain
people and the not danger of other people. Not reacting to everybody the
same.
Cultural insensitivity has been a common complaint among the PL 280 respondents in
our larger study,
167 but apparently this was not severe enough for either of the two tribes
in the retrocession group to have been an impetus for retrocession.
High Crime
Only 2 respondents cited high crime as the reason the tribe retroceded. This is
significant because it shows that, at least for the respondents in this study, retrocession is
about much more than effectively dealing with crime. While crime may have indeed
been a problem on these reservations, other issues such as prejudice, poor services, and
police brutality rated higher as motivations for retrocession.
The reservation just was a wild place ...
out on the street, it was just
lawless.
But we needed our own law because we were having problems with drugs
and alcohol, and all of that. ... We needed them because it was getting out
448
167 See Chapter 6.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
of hand at times. I find that true all over, though. But we needed them
here.
Other issues mentioned by respondents included the growing population that
created the need for additional law enforcement, the arbitrary application of laws, better
protection of fishing rights, and that retrocession was the “obvious choice.”
The themes that emerged from these interviews included some serious
complaints, such as prejudicial treatment and police brutality. It may not be surprising
that these themes have not emerged as clearly in the case studies or in public venues such
as hearings. The NIJ study assurances of confidentiality provided some reassurance that
reservation residents could safely speak privately about what may have been too
controversial or shameful to speak about publicly.
