|
Window Rock Navajo Tribal
Park & Veteran's Memorial (Indian Country Today photo)
|
Statehood will not fix the problems
facing the Navajo Nation but it would do two things: Add a voice
in Congress and get more money from Washington
This is a moment of dramatic change. The upside of a year like
2020 is that notions once thought impossible are being debated anew.
Recently Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from
New York, told MSNBC that hed love to make both
Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico states. The Democrats presidential
nominee, Joe Biden, has also called for the island and its 3.5 million
American citizens to get statehood. The question will be voted on
next month, when Puerto Ricans will decide between statehood, territorial
status, or something else.
Though additional hurdles would still remain, Democrats have indicated
there will be action on statehood should they win the election,
and especially if they sweep the House, Senate and White House.
But is that all? Is this also the moment for Congress to consider
the Navajo Nation for statehood?
The idea of a state of Navajo, or state of Dinétah, has
surfaced from time to time. The concept of an Indigenous state has
a rich history in the United States as well as around the world.
(A note about language: The word Dinétah, or among
the people, is used in this piece; however, should statehood
proceed, Navajo citizens would make the call on a name.)
Nathan Lefthand wrote about statehood in an Indian Country Today
op-ed in 2013.
The State of Navajo. Its almost Zen, how it rolls off
the tongue, he wrote. This idea has been deep in the
reptilian core of my brain for some time, lying dormant till news
of the Navajo government was finalizing its Medicaid feasibility
study to go before Congress for approval this spring, thanks to
the Affordable Care Act. Then boom, all those thoughts and ideas
to somehow fix or feed the many problems we have.
Statehood will not fix the problems facing the Navajo Nation, but
it would do two things: Add representation in Congress and open
up more funding. The federal government has a different formula
for how to distribute money to states than it does for tribal governments.
So much so that federal dollars are the single largest share of
every state budget, averaging about a third of all the money coming
in. Nearly $1 of every $5 spent by Congress is shipped to states.
And some states do better than others.
New Mexico is at the top of the list. The Brookings Institute estimates
the transfer of payments between the federal government
and that state at more than $3,500 per person. If the same formula
is applied to the Navajo Nation, the total would be around $600
million per year. As a comparison, emergency funding for the tribe
in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act was $714
million. But that was a one-time funding source (and the most ever
spent on Indian Country).
There is no guarantee the state of Dinétah would receive
that much. But even if the state with the lowest percentage of federal
transfers is used, that base number would still exceed $340 million
a year. (Then, so much of federal spending is based on Census data,
including poverty levels. So a state of Dinétah is likely
to be on the higher side of that equation).
|
A map of the State of
Sequoyah. (Library of Congress)
|
Statehood 101
The process for a state to be created out of another state, under
the Constitution, is for Congress to act, followed by action from
each of the state legislatures. In this case, that would be Arizona,
New Mexico and Utah. Article IV, Section 3 outlines this process.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction
of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two
or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures
of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
This would seem an insurmountable hurdle. Why would the three states
be willing to give up so much territory? And, what about the politics?
Would conservative lawmakers vote to create a state that is likely
to elect Democrats (at least initially)?
But there is another view. Some argue Congress could act unilaterally
because the Navajo Nations 1868 treaty predates the creation
of Arizona and New Mexico in 1912 and Utah in 1896.
The idea of an Indigenous state has been tried before. Five tribes
in Oklahoma held a convention to form the state of Sequoyah out
of what was then the Indian Territory. Their goal: to create
a state government that might replace tribal sovereignty with a
rough second best Indian sovereignty through democratic majority,
according to the Library of Congress. Their efforts yielded
a constitution, which included a bill of rights, provisions for
the separation of powers among three branches of government, the
establishment of counties and their borders, the regulation of trade,
and the prohibition of the manufacture of intoxicating spirits,
among other things.
Voters in the territory, both Native and White, overwhelmingly
agreed.
But a Republican-led Congress wasnt about to allow two states
to be formed that would send Democrats to Washington. And, as a
recent National Geographic article pointed out, many lawmakers disliked
the idea of a state governed by Native leaders instead of one by
and for White citizens. Instead, Congress passed the Oklahoma
Enabling Act of 1906. This new law settled the debate over statehood
by inviting representatives to write a state constitution, choose
a capital, and move forward with a state that combined both Oklahoma
and Indian Territories.
Every state sends at least one representative to the U.S. House
and two members to the U.S. Senate.
|
The adopted Constitution
of the State of Sequoyah. (Library of Congress.)
|
Indigenous sovereignty
More recent examples of the Indigenous state can be found in Greenland
and Canadas Nunavut.
Nunavut is a self-governing territory created in 1999 and home
to some 40,000 people, mostly Inuit. Inuit is the Inuktitut word
for people; Inuk for person. And Nunavut
is an Inuktitut word for our land.
A 1998 paper from the University of Queenslands Centre for
Democracy compared the importance of Nunavut to creating a stronger
governance system for Aboriginal communities in the Torres Strait.
"Both are cultures so different from the traditions of the
country's majority that little real national understanding or appreciation
of them exists. Both draw strength and inspiration from ethnic kin
across international borders, some of whom are self-governing. Both
are politically marginal, even in comparison with other indigenous
people in the country, the paper said.
Both feel threatened by growing resource extraction and related
pollution and shipment in their homelands.
|
Symbol of the self-governing
territory of Nunavut.
|
Self-government was seen as a key element in national sovereignty.
Not only did the Federal Government of Canada concede the
right of the Inuit of Nunavut to cultural self-preservation, self-determination
and self-rule within a framework for Inuit- dominated public government
under the sovereignty of the Canadian Federal Government, it also
agreed to most of the expense, wrote Holly Dobbins in her
2019 doctoral thesis at Syracuse University. She described the process
as one of negotiation and community consultation.
Aluki Kotierk, Inuit, is president of Nunavut Tunnnavik Incorporated,
an Inuit organization that ensures promises made under the Nunavut
Agreement are carried out.
She wrote in Policy Options about one promise that has fallen short:
With the creation of Nunavut, Canada missed a bold, nation-building
opportunity. Canada could have recognized Inuktut as the founding
language of Nunavut. Canada could have sufficiently funded and supported
Inuktut so that it would be the working language of the territorial
government. Inuktut as the language of government was costed out,
but the Government of Canadas Department of Finance decided
to postpone funding it to a later date. That date has yet to come.
She said the language challenge is daunting. Inuktut use
in Nunavut is declining by 1 percent per year, she wrote.
At this rate by 2050 only 4 percent of us will be speaking
Inuktut at home.
Another Inuit homeland, Greenland, or Naalakkersuisut, also has
home rule but remains part of colonial Denmark. For now. Full international
independence could come as soon as next year because under Danish
law, a referendum on independence could happen at any time.
President Donald Trump said in August 2019 that hed like
to buy Greenland from Denmark, ignoring the islands self rule.
The countrys leader, speaking in Greenlandic, told the Arctic
Circle conference last year that Greenland is not for sale,
and the country cannot be valued with money.
Tribal sovereignty, state sovereignty
I strongly believe that Indian Country must make its move
to capitalize on tribal sovereignty and establish a more firm and
stable identity, said Lawrence Isaac Jr., dean of the Diné
College School of Diné Studies & Education.
Navajo Nation is slowly deteriorating in a number of key
attributes beginning with its language; cultural core values; and
unique identity.
Indian Country must do better in terms of
governmental representation and ownership as original inhabitants.
He said the Navajo Nation should carefully calculate
its next move toward more authority and home rule if it's
to survive in the next decades; it's that critical.
Charles Wilkinson is an emeritus professor at the University of
Colorado Law School and the author of more than a dozen books on
federal-Indian policy.
Right now, Navajo can probably be described as a federal
government. The Navajo national government is overarching, like
the United States. The chapters, which of course are unique, have
many similarities to counties, so you have two levels of government.
That structure could be incorporated into a statehood arrangement
without losing the traditional, cultural and political relationship
between the national Navajo government with headquarters in Window
Rock and the chapters, he wrote.
This is essentially the case in Alaska, where more than 230 villages
are recognized by the United States as tribal governments. The Navajo
Nation has 110 chapters and five regions, or agencies, that could
be incorporated into that kind of framework.
Wilkinson said there are other problems with statehood.
First, now citizenship depends upon Navajo blood, and I don't
think it would be politically possible, and probably constitutionally
invalid, for that to continue. That means that residents of the
geographical nation would have to have voting rights, he wrote.
Over time, the number of non-Navajo residents could be significant.
I think Nunavut has had difficulties with that.
Former Navajo Nation Attorney General Ethel Branch called the citizenship
issue interesting; super, super interesting. What if
the approach were along the lines of immigration? Then citizenship
could be defined by attributes beyond birthright.
What do we want our citizenry to reflect? she asked.
Culturally, linguistically or in terms of their knowledge
and their political participation.
She said in a way that would echo Navajo history, where people
could learn the language or the culture as an entry point. More
than a century ago people became Navajo by learning language or
culture.
Honestly, when I think about why we would want to have statehood,
it's not just having a senator and representative in Congress,
she said. It's also about having a direct flow of funds between
the federal government and the Navajo Nation instead of having to
go to the states and the counties.
And many of those counties are run largely by non-Indians. Statehood
would change that.
Branch said another significant change would be in the criminal
justice system. As it stands, three states, the federal government
and tribal systems all have different jurisdiction and authority
on the Navajo Nation. Most of the time, she said, there is a good
flow of information, but there are also cases missed. Sometimes
they wouldn't even tell us when a federal crime occurred on our
land; we had to hear about it indirectly. And that's really problematic,
she said.
Statehood could also mean a single U.S. attorneys office
and more shared standards that are common across states.
But thats not the big picture.
What do we care about more? asks Branch. Considering
statehood is important so we can ensure an equitable allocation
of resources. I was just looking at a recent HUD report and in the
context of the voting rights issue, it is reported that anywhere
from 40-some-odd thousand to 80-some-odd thousand Navajo tribal
members are house surfing or essentially homeless at any given moment.
That means a quarter to a half of tribal members are homeless.
When you have 27,000 square miles, I just feel like that's
criminal. No one on the Navajo Nation should be homeless, and maybe
moving to that statehood status would open up new resources,
possibilities and even access to more homes.
Its that question about resources as well as representation
that makes the case for Dinétah. There are other options,
of course.
Congress could fund tribal nations with a formula that is similar
to states. A fully funded Indian health system is an example of
that; even if Medicaid and other third-party insurance funds are
included, federal spending on health remains far below that of any
other health system (including federal prisons). As Dr. Donald Warne
of the University of North Dakota wrote in a paper for the National
Institutes of Medicine: To bring the IHS budget to an equitable
level
would require approximately an additional $3 billion
per year. With a Department of Health and Human Services budget
of more than $800 billion per year, this increase represents only
a few tenths of 1 percent, and this increase would have a significant
return on investment in terms of saving lives and reducing human
suffering.
The same idea of equity could apply across the board, from highways
to higher education.
There is also the question of representation. The territories of
the United States, such as Puerto Rico, Guam and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands have marginal representation in
Congress (a House delegate who can serve in committees but not vote).
And even that is not equitable: Delegate Gregorio K. C. Sablan represents
the Northern Mariana Islands with a constituency of about 55,000
people, less than a third of the Navajo Nation.
A delegate in Congress does not go far enough for Branch. I
don't want the nonvoting, she said. I guess that's marginally
helpful, but, you need someone who can introduce legislation and
carry that to the finish line and including through their own votes.
|