Several tribes across the nation are battling within themselves to determine who shall be considered a tribal member, eligible for money and benefits that accrue as a result of Indian gaming.
On March 15 the Nooksack Indian Tribe of Washington state will vote on what some members are calling a “referendum on disenrollment.” The tribal government has recently moved to disenroll 300 tribal members. This has resulted in several lawsuits in tribal and federal court.
The election is for tribal council, with a slate candidates running against the current council stating that they will stop the disenrollment process.
According to an attorney who represents many of those who are defending their memberships in court, “In the general election the Nooksack People, who have been silenced in all political forums for the last fourteen months, will rightfully have a say in the matter.”
Although disenrollment is being used more often in recent years, tribes have employed versions of it, including banning or banishment, for centuries.
In California some claim that 5,000 tribal members were removed from their tribes’ rolls between 2000-2008. No tribal government will admit that the they are disenrolling members in order to limit the number of those who receive casino benefits, but rather that they are removing members who joined only to get those benefits.
Others claim that up to 6,000 have been removed nationwide from 54 tribes.
In Michigan the Saginaw Chippewa tribe tried to remove 484 members in 1996, as the tribe prepared to open the Soaring Eagle Casino. However, just recently 50 members were disenrolled from the 3,700-member tribe. Tribal adult members receive $58,000 a year.
According to David Wilkins, an American Indian studies professor at the University of Minnesota, interviewed by the Detroit News, “The very definition of a tribal nation seems to be in rapid flux right now.”
The power struggle between old and new members of the Saginaw Chippewa continues to ebb and flow with the elections every two years. Whenever a different faction gains power it amends the enrollment ordinance to try to gain an advantage. That document, now approaching 30 pages, has been amended dozens of times in the last dozen years to the point where no claims to fully understand what it says.
In 2005 a tribal appellate court overturned most of the disenrollments. “For the past decade, if not longer, the tribe has been embroiled in extensive political and legal conflict over issues of membership,” the court wrote. Tribal court rulings are generally the last word on disenrollments since the federal government usually declines to get involved in disputes over tribal governance.
Fueling the current ouster attempts is a four-year drop in revenue at the tribe’s two casinos. This lowered individual payments from $78,000 to $58,000 in the last decade.
According to Bill Masterson, who was removed from the rolls, “This is all about money. The leadership is in a financial bind that they will do anything to get out of.”
