Connecticut officials—including Governor Dannel Malloy and the state’s seven-member Congressional delegation—are pushing back hard against the federal Bureau of Indian Affair’s potential rule changes that could
lead to recognition of additional Indian tribes—and expanded Indian gaming–in Connecticut.
Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn has said he wants to fix a “broken” federal recognition process, which currently requires a tribe to prove its continuous community and political authority since first contact with European settlers, around 1789. Washburn’s proposal would allow a petitioning tribe to demonstrate it has maintained a state reservation since 1934. Also, tribes that have been denied recognition in the past would be allowed to reapply.
Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said, “The proposed rules represent a dramatic departure from the standards and process governing acknowledgment decisions for nearly 40 years. If adopted as proposed, petitioners could gain recognition in circumstances completely at odds with fundamental principles of tribal acknowledgement. These proposals are unjustified and should be rejected.”
The entire Connecticut congressional delegation also signed a seven-page letter in support of the state’s objections. Blumenthal said, “For the life of me, I cannot understand why the BIA is pursuing this very misguided and mistaken draft, which seems profoundly illegal as well as critically unwise.” He said tribes that have been denied recognition “will have a second bite at recognition and a playing field whose goal lines have been drastically moved. It’s the equivalent of saying: ‘We’ll just disregard a couple of centuries of history that was relevant before.’ It’s a 1984-type legal revisionism that has no foundation in law.”
In their letter, the all-Democratic delegation said the federal government should improve the process “rather than weakening the longstanding standards for federal recognition.” The letter stated, “With recognition, the tribe has the authority to claim land currently in private ownership. In cases in Connecticut the land may have been owned by families for generations” but the tribe could enact its own laws as a sovereign nation.
In addition, the letter asked the BIA to eliminate the proposal that allowed rejected tribes to petition again for recognition, because the consent requirement or third-party veto would be challenged in court. “We note that at least one party is objecting to the consent requirement, contending it may be unconstitutional,” the letter stated.
That party is the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation, who, along with the Schaghticokes, were given BIA recognition that was withdrawn after an appeal by the state of Connecticut. Kathleen Sebastian Dring, an elder of the Eastern Pequot tribe, said, “The BIA failed to consider the long, oppressive history of the state of Connecticut. The third-party veto undermines the BIA’s attempt to create an equitable and objective process for the tribes. As Eastern Pequot tribal members we are entitled to the equal protection of laws in accordance to the U.S. Constitution.”
Jepsen noted the veto provision may not prevent Connecticut’s tribes from suing the state if it doesn’t consent to recognition, and “the outcome of the litigation is uncertain.” Jepsen also said he is concerned the proposed regulations wouldn’t block “splinter groups” of Indian tribes from seeking recognition.
A new, final Indian recognition rule will be posted within 60 days. But it could be revised again based comments from the Malloy administration, Connecticut’s tribes and the public.
