|
Passage of a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment regarding the publication of a section of the Maine Constitution that outlines the state's treaty obligations with Native tribes has been recommended by a legislative committee. The Judiciary Committee, though, did express some concerns about whether to try to send the issue out to a statewide referendum vote this coming November or next year, since there could be a cost depending on the number of ballot questions.
A constitutional amendment that was ratified in 1875 forbids the publication of Article X, Section 5 of the Maine Constitution, although the section remains in effect. The section outlines the state's responsibilities to observe the duties and obligations, including treaty obligations, that had been agreed to by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with Native Americans.
The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Henry John Bear of the Houlton Band of Maliseets, stated that the section of the Maine Constitution "has been hidden from our history," although it is still legally enforceable. He noted it could not even be printed in his bill, since it would be illegal. Having the section hidden has caused much unnecessary confusion and conflict between the state and the tribes, he maintained. Rep. Bear also noted that Maine law requires the teaching of the history of the tribes in Maine, and allowing the publication of the section of the constitution "would help schools comply with this law."
Maria Girouard, a Penobscot Nation member and historian, noted that Maine Attorney General Janet Mills had responded to a question about tribal litigation by saying that the state has no treaties with the tribes. However, there are treaties, she pointed out, including the 1794 treaty between Massachusetts and the Passamaquoddy Tribe, which was the basis for the legal dispute that led to the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980, and the 1818 treaty between the Penobscots and Massachusetts.
A letter from Mills concerning the bill states that the 1875 commission that proposed the section not be printed had recommended "decluttering" the Maine Constitution. However, one of the committee members, Senator Chris Johnson of Somerville, stated, "We should not be hiding part of our guiding document that still is in force today." Although it is not clear why the 1875 constitutional amendment was adopted, it was pointed out by a committee member that the period was "the height of anti-Indian sentiment" in the U.S., with the American Indian wars out west.
Bills withdrawn
Some of the other bills concerning the tribes were withdrawn by the sponsors. Among those bills were one to improve tribal-state relations by removing the reference to municipalities, a resolve to allow federally recognized tribes to conduct a pilot project in hemp cultivation, which had been requested by the Aroostook Band of Micmacs, and a bill to include a representative from the Aroostook Band of Micmacs in the House of Representatives. The Micmacs had requested that both of the bills concerning the tribe be withdrawn.
Passamaquoddy Rep. Matthew Dana, who sponsored the bill on tribal-state relations, said the tribes did not want to pursue the issue at this time. However, several people did offer testimony on the bill, including John Banks, a Penobscot Nation member of the Maine Indian Tribal State Commission (MITSC), who said that the municipality language has created one of the most controversial issues that is brought to MITSC. He said tribal leaders have stated that the only reason that the municipality reference was included in the Maine Implementing Act for the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act was so that the Passamaquoddys and Penobscots could receive state revenue sharing funding. However, he said that state agencies have tried to use the language in other ways, including to have the Maine Freedom of Access Act applied to the tribes. However, he pointed out that the tribes are not municipalities. Maria Girouard said that she feared the bill does not go far enough in describing the nation within a nation status of the tribes and that it would lead to confusion and misinterpretation. Following the testimony, the committee killed the bill at the request of the sponsor. |
