While not as sweeping as the tribal sovereignty bill that stalled in the last legislative session and is expected to be reintroduced next year, a bill to grant the tribes in Maine the benefits of federal laws that apply to all other federally recognized tribes in the country was introduced with only one day's notice in the legislature this year.
      During a May 31 hearing on LD 2004 by the legislature's Judiciary Committee, proponents pointed out that there are 151 federal laws that the four federally recognized tribes in the state are excluded from because of the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act. However, opponents, including Governor Janet Mills, argued that the bill is too vague and would create significant confusion.
      The legislation goes further than federal legislation that Maine Congressman Jared Golden put forward unsuccessfully last year that would have allowed the four tribes to benefit from any new federal tribal legislation, as the measure would apply retroactively to existing federal laws as well as future legislation. The bill, though, would not impact gaming or the operation of casinos in Maine, as it states that the Wabanaki nations may only conduct gaming activities in accordance with the laws of Maine and may not conduct gaming under the authority of federal law.
      The bill is sponsored by House Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross, with bipartisan co-sponsorship, and stems from the consensus recommendations from the 2019 Task Force on Changes to the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Implementing Act. The measure encompasses only one of the task force's 22 recommendations.
      Chief Rena Newell of the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Sipayik said, "The settlement act is holding back tribes in Maine compared to other federal tribes, according to a recent study by the Harvard Kennedy School. The study found that from 1989 to 2020 the average per capita gross domestic product growth for Maine tribes was 9%, which was far below the 61% growth for tribes in the other states. We need the ability to govern our people and our lands as other federally recognized tribes can so we can prosper."
      Vice Chief Joseph Socobasin of Passamaquoddy Tribe at Motahkomikuk pointed to a specific example with the federal Stafford Act. When a natural disaster hits tribal lands, the tribe, unlike other tribes in the country, cannot work directly with the Federal Emergency Management Agency about obtaining disaster aid because the tribe is not able to declare its own disaster declaration, since the Stafford Act does not apply within Maine. Socobasin stated, "Earlier this year, when a major freeze hit the state, our health care center suffered significant damage. We had to close temporarily to allow for extensive repairs. The State of Maine had not declared a state of emergency on our behalf, so we began to immediately invest significant tribal resources into getting our health center back into operation as quickly as possible. This is just one example of how not having access to federal beneficial laws has had dire consequences."
      Chief Kirk Francis of the Penobscot Nation said, "The last 42 years have shown that the settlement act needs modernizing. We are looking to this legislature to begin modernizing the relationship between the Wabanaki nations and state. It is time for the state to stop treating the Wabanaki nations as enemies and start treating us as the partners and neighbors we are."
      However, some opposed the bill, including Gerald Reid, chief legal counsel for Governor Mills, who said the bill would override a federal statute in the settlement act. He stated, "Federal laws may override -- or preempt -- inconsistent state laws, but the same is not true in reverse." He also said the bill would lead to extensive litigation and confusion about the state of the law in Maine. Reid suggested a more straightforward way to ensure the Wabanaki nations are benefitting from federal Indian law would be for the tribes, the governor and the congressional delegation to work together to identify federal statutes that benefit the tribes but that do not apply in Maine. Legislation could then be enacted to make the necessary changes.
      Chief Francis, though, objected to this case-by-case basis approach. "We strongly disagree with this viewpoint because it continues to maintain the current restrictions in the settlement acts, which require that the Wabanaki nations be specifically written into federal legislation if the law would impact the state's jurisdiction. This status quo places an undue burden on the Wabanaki nations and promotes inequality." He maintained, "The governor's suggested approach continues to give the state virtual veto power over the application of any federal law to the Wabanaki nations and perpetuates the lack of clarity we have around the applicability of such laws because the state can raise a jurisdictional objection at any time with no meaning."
      Other objections to the bill were raised by Lloyd Cutler, a select board member in the Town of Carrabassett Valley. He was concerned that, as he understands, the bill would allow all federal laws for the benefit of the tribes to apply in Maine, even if they preempt the application of Maine laws, including those relating to municipal jurisdiction. The bill might remove the right of municipalities to approve the conversion of tribal fee land to federal trust land and might mean that the state's municipalities would lose all town land use regulation on tribal lands. "Federal law may be used to argue that tribal lands are not subject to municipal or state land use regulation," he stated. Also, it's possible that municipalities might not be able to continue to tax tribal fee land, which in the case of Carrabassett Valley is about half the town.
      Matthew Manahan, an attorney representing a coalition of municipalities including Carrabassett Valley and sanitary and sewer districts, also argued that the bill would remove municipal jurisdiction over tribal reservation and trust lands. He said the bill "would allow the tribes to create their own environmental and land use regulations separate from the state's environmental laws and regulations, and the tribes would not be subject to the state's laws. This dual system of regulation would allow Maine's tribes to regulate Maine municipalities, companies and citizens. The tribes would have the authority to set standards without considering non-tribal members' comments or economic interests. Dual standards would also create compliance burdens and confusion."
      At a work session on June 6, the Judiciary Committee furthered discussed the bill and voted to table it for additional consideration during this session, which is scheduled to end later this month. The committee also voted to carry over until the next session another bill, LD 2007, that had just been introduced and proposes substantial changes to the settlement act. The text of that bill has not been drafted yet.