Equal tax treatment among Wabanaki Nations poised to come to fruition this year
Participants in a Wabanaki Alliance rally on Indigenous Peoples' Day at the Maine State House in Augusta. (Photo by Jim Neuger/Maine Morning Star)
After a 2022 change left out the Mi'kmaq Nation from reform, legislation to ensure equal tax treatment among all of the Wabanaki Nations secured the approval of both chambers of the Maine Legislature this week.
LD 982, sponsored by Sen. Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Cumberland), passed the House of Representatives and Senate on Tuesday without roll call votes.
The bill would exempt the Mi'kmaq Nation from state sales and income tax for activities occurring on tribal trust or reservation lands and allow the Tribe to generate sales tax revenues from sales on their own lands — the same rights afforded to the other Wabanaki Nations.
The Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation were granted these rights under a 2022 tax revision, also proposed by Talbot Ross, which brought them on par with the rules that apply to other tribal nations throughout the country.
Compared to other federally recognized tribes, the Wabanaki Nations are treated more akin to municipalities than sovereign nations because of the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act.
But the Mi'kmaq Nation was not referred to in the Settlement Act and only received federal recognition later in 1991. Last session, the Legislature passed a law known as The Mi'kmaq Nation Restoration Act that put the Tribe on par with the rest of the Wabanaki Nations.
LD 982 therefore builds upon the restoration act and the tax revision.
This change was previously attempted last session with legislation proposed by State Treasurer Joseph Perry, then representing Bangor in the Maine House. While that bill received favorable committee and chamber votes, it got caught up in end-of-session procedural fights and ultimately died without final action when lawmakers adjourned.
The bill this session ultimately becoming law is not yet guaranteed. It has several associated costs, which means it's likely to go to the appropriations table, where bills with fiscal notes that are not already provided for have to vie for funding.
This bill would decrease the state's general fund by $4,750 in fiscal year 2025-26 and $45,150 in fiscal year 2026-27. It would also result in ongoing annual transfers of $500 to the Mi'kmaq Sales Tax Fund and result in revenue decreases to the Local Government Fund. There would also be a one-time cost — $19,300 — to fund computer programming costs associated with the provisions of this bill.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Effort to pull Maine out of national popular vote compact fails
People emerge from the Besse Building after casting their ballots in Albion, Maine on Tuesday, November 5, 2024. (Photo by Michael G. Seamans/ Maine Morning Star) After the chambers of the Maine Legislature failed to agree, an effort to remove the state from a compact that seeks to abolish the Electoral College failed on Tuesday. In 2024, the Legislature adopted something called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which Gov. Janet Mills allowed to become law without her signature. States that are part of the compact pledge their Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate with the most overall votes across the country, but it would only take effect once states with a total of 270 Electoral College votes have joined. Including Maine, 17 states and the District of Columbia have ratified the agreement, giving the compact a total of 209 electoral votes. Earlier this month, the Maine House of Representatives passed legislation, LD 252, that sought to repeal the decision to enter the compact. The Senate tabled the bill until Monday, when the upper chamber failed to pass it with a 16-18 vote before ultimately rejecting it. Both the House and Senate insisted on their positions on Tuesday, effectively killing the bill. Maine and Nebraska are the only states that split their electoral votes across candidates. Other states use a winner-take-all system where the candidate with the majority of the state's popular vote gets all of the state's electoral votes. During floor speeches throughout consideration of LD 252, lawmakers disagreed on whether the current system or one in which the Electoral College is nullified would better represent Maine. In the House on Tuesday, Rep. Barbara A. Bagshaw (R-Windham) argued the current system reflects the will of all 50 states individually, whereas the National Popular Vote would dilute Mainers' votes. However, Rep. Arthur Bell (D-Yarmouth), who sponsored the legislation to enter the pact last year, argued during a floor debate last month that the Electoral College system results in candidates only paying attention to voters in swing states, which Maine is not. Mills allowed the measure to become law last year because she saw merit in both sides of this argument. 'Recognizing that this measure has been the subject of public discussion several times before in Maine, I would like this important nationwide debate to continue and so I will allow this bill to become law without my signature,' she said in the statement at the time. And both sides of the debate do not fall squarely along party lines. While LD 252 was sponsored solely by Republicans, it has been backed by some Democrats in committee and floor votes. In April, the majority of the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee voted in favor of it, with eight legislators — Republicans, Democrats and one unenrolled — in support and five Democrats opposed. Separately, the committee voted against another proposal, LD 1356, that sought to change Maine's method of allocating electoral votes from the current district split to a winner-take-all system — but only if Nebraska also adopts winner-take-all. This bill is currently tabled in the House. In April, the Nebraska Legislature killed a bill that sought to make this switch, after Republicans failed to secure enough votes to overcome a four-hour filibuster. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
Maine Legislature approves bill to curb price gouging for concert tickets
Jun. 13—The Maine Legislature has passed a bill that performing arts venues say could help fans avoid scams, surprise fees and overpriced tickets. LD 913 requires ticket sellers to clearly disclose all fees upfront. It also bans the use of bots to bypass ticket limits and fake websites that mimic real venues. It prohibits vendors from selling speculative tickets — tickets they don't already own or that haven't gone on sale yet — and requires resellers to issue refunds for counterfeit tickets. The bill will now go to Gov. Janet Mills for consideration. She has 10 days to either sign the bill, veto it or allow it to become law without her signature. A spokesperson for her office on Friday did not say how she would act on this legislation. "It just is really about keeping our creative economy dollars circulating locally," said Mollie Cashwell, director of the Cultural Alliance of Maine, which supported the bill. Performing arts organizations of all kinds told lawmakers that their patrons are struggling to keep up with the secondary market. Maggie LaMee, director of finance and administration at the Ogunquit Playhouse, said the theater regularly gets calls from patrons who are upset because they spent hundreds of dollars on a seat. The staff has to tell those callers that they were tricked into paying an inflated price through a reseller — the Ogunquit Playhouse didn't sell any tickets for the recent show of "Come From Away" for more than $160. And the extra money those patrons spent doesn't go to the local arts organizations or nearby businesses. "This legislation addresses the deceptive practices that are harming the consumer and then also harming the venue," LaMee said. Lauren Wayne, president of the State Theatre Presents in Portland, said bad actors use bots to scoop up hundreds of tickets at a time and then resell them for much more than their face value on websites that are made to look like the venue's. Even worse, the box office sometimes sees tickets that are just plain fake. At last year's sold-out Gracie Abrams concert, for example, Wayne said young women were crying outside the show when they realized their tickets were counterfeit. The State Theatre planned for scams and reserved seats for those fans, but the business and the artist had to eat the cost. Should the bill become law, the Maine Office of the Attorney General could enforce violations as unfair trade practices. Anyone in violation could be subject to a civil penalty of no more than $5,000. A federal law is supposed to prevent automated bots from buying tickets, but concert promoters say it's rarely enforced. Wayne said she won't hesitate to turn to state officials instead. "We'll be reporting all the violations that we know about, which we can easily find through our ticketing site and because we've been doing this for so long," Wayne said. "We have no qualms about having the attorney general's information handy and readily available to hand out at shows." "Buying a ticket to see your favorite band or team shouldn't feel like navigating a trap," Senate President Mattie Daughtry, D-Brunswick, sponsor of the bill, said in a news release. "This legislation puts power back in the hands of consumers by ensuring transparency, banning deceptive practices, and protecting Mainers from scams. Maine people love live music and supporting our local Maine venues, which are the heart of so many of our communities. Everyone deserves to know what they're paying for — no surprises, no hidden fees, just fun." The Housing and Economic Development Committee worked with arts organizations on the amended version that passed both chambers of the Legislature this week. "LD 913 will be a meaningful step toward preserving Maine's rich, independent live events culture and protecting the venues, artists, and fans that make it special," said Rep. Cassie Julia, D-Waterville, who sponsored the committee amendment. Copy the Story Link We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others. We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion. You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs. Show less
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
Ban on state seizure of Wabanaki land passes Legislature, but likely to be vetoed
William Nicholas, chief of the Passamoquoddy Tribe at Indian Township, testifies in support of prohibiting eminent domain on tribal lands before the Judiciary Committee on April 4. (Emma Davis/ Maine Morning Star) Legislation that would prevent the state from being able to seize tribal land for public use passed with bipartisan support in the Maine Legislature Friday, winning over many Republicans who generally were less supportive of previous attempts to provide the Wabanaki Nations greater sovereignty. However, initial votes show that support may not be enough to override an expected veto from Gov. Janet Mills. With 11 Republicans joining the Democratic majority, the Maine House of Representatives voted 86-60 on Friday in favor of the bill, preceded by ample debate. The Senate followed suit with a 20-12 vote but no discussion. However, a two-thirds vote in both chambers would be needed to override a veto. LD 958, which has bipartisan co-sponsors and received a favorable committee vote, would prohibit the state from exercising something called eminent domain on current trust and reservation land. 'This is an issue that small government conservatives and civil justice liberals can agree on,' bill sponsor House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor) told Maine Morning Star. However, others in his caucus spoke against the bill during floor debate, highlighting that their opposition to this issue is attached to their overall opposition to tribal sovereignty efforts. 'I cannot support this measure because I believe the issue is an issue to some degree less about eminent domain than it is about tribal sovereignty,' Rep. Ken Fredette (R-Newport) said. Fredette went on to compare the Wabanaki Nations to states and municipalities. Governor opposed to latest change to Settlement Act backed by Wabanaki Nations 'Our states are not absolute sovereign from our federal government,' Fredette said. 'Our towns are not absolute sovereign from the state in and the reality is that the tribes are not absolutely sovereign from the state of Maine.' Most other federally recognized tribes are already afforded protection against states being able to seize tribal land for public use. However, the Wabanaki Nations are not, due to repercussions from the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act. This land settlement agreement has resulted in the tribes being treated more akin to municipalities than sovereign nations like other federally recognized tribes. Overhauling this act in its entirety is the Wabanaki Nations' broader goal for greater recognition of their sovereignty. The U.S. government can seize private property for public use, a principle known as eminent domain, however that authority is restricted by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which requires just compensation for land taken, as well as some federal laws. In 1834, the federal Indian Nonintercourse Act prohibited land transactions with tribes unless authorized by Congress, but the Settlement Act specified that that federal law was not applicable to the Wabanaki Nations. 'As an ardent supporter of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights I stand opposed to the government taking people's property through eminent domain,' Faulkingham said. 'It is even more egregious to threaten seizure of property from sovereign tribes who have suffered from historic injustices of land seizures in the past.' LD 958 would amend the Settlement Act to prohibit the state from exercising eminent domain on trust and reservation land, which is protected under federal law, though fee land — or private property for which the owner owns the title — would still be subject to the state taking. The bill would also amend the 2023 Mi'kmaq Nation Restoration Act to make this change for the fourth Tribe of the Wabanaki Nations, the Mi'kmaq Nation, which wasn't included in the Settlement Act. 'I feel like this is a no brainer,' Executive Director of the Wabanaki Alliance Maulian Bryant told Maine Morning Star. 'We should have tribal land protected from state seizure, just like other tribes around the country.' Throughout committee consideration of the bill, it was amended to incorporate a proposed change from the Maine State Chamber of Commerce that the prohibition would only apply to current reservation and trust lands, and not land that may be put into trust in the future. Each of the Wabanaki Nations are eligible to acquire up to 150,000 acres of trust land in specific areas identified in the Settlement Act. Several tribes have already acquired most of that. While the Judiciary Committee accepted that amendment, Passamaquoddy Tribal Rep. Aaron Dana, who is on the committee, told Maine Morning Star that some tribal leaders believed that compromise shouldn't have been made. 'We don't want to keep negotiating away everything,' Dana said. 'We've been negotiating everything away since the 1980s.' 'What we don't know is what we don't know,' Fredette said on the floor. 'Would we, as a state, for the best interest of the state, require a sliver of a piece of land? I don't know the answer to that.' Fredette repeated many of the same talking points that the governor's counsel, Jerry Reid, told the Judiciary Committee during a work session in which he shared that Mills is opposed to the bill. After not testifying during the bill's public hearing, Reid said on April 9 that Mills is concerned the bill could prevent the state government from addressing unpredictable future infrastructure needs, an issue also raised in written testimony from the Maine Department of Transportation. When pressed by committee members, Reid said he didn't have a specific example of an infrastructure project that would warrant seizing tribal land but that, 'We need to write the law mindful of the potential for problems.' Republican Sen. David Haggan of Penobscot, who was one of four committee members to vote against the bill in committee, invited Reid and Tim Woodcock, attorney with Eaton Peabody, to provide a question and answer session about the bill, which was only attended by Republican legislators on May 8. A handout from that meeting listed similar key points, pointing to uncertain future needs and arguing that the state needs to be mindful of the interests of the 1.4 million non-tribal Maine citizens, as well. 'Informational sessions like this are not unusual,' the governor's press secretary Ben Goodman said when asked why the session was held. So far, sweeping changes to the Settlement Act have failed due to opposition from Mills, though an omnibus sovereignty bill has been carried over into next year. Instead, the governor, lawmakers and Wabanaki leaders have successfully made some targeted adjustments, including expanding tribal authority to prosecute crimes last year. Craig Francis, a tribal attorney and Passamaquoddy citizen, told Maine Morning Star that the Wabanaki Nations hadn't expected the eminent domain issue to garner the pushback from the Mills administration that it has. 'We're trying to approach change that way because of what the governor has laid that out as a path forward,' Francis said, referring to the piecemeal approach. 'We didn't really see eminent domain as that big of an issue as her office is making it out to be.' The state has not exercised eminent domain over tribal lands since the Settlement Act, a point Fredette also made on the House floor. This also means that, currently, the state's ability to exercise eminent domain over tribal lands is not actually clear. 'I suspect that even if the state were going to attempt to take a piece of tribal land by eminent domain, it would be sufficiently litigated frankly for years before that were to happen,' Fredette said on the floor, 'and so I think this is a bill that's in search of a problem.' Meanwhile, Francis said the likelihood of litigation is a reason to clarify rights now in the bill. 'It leaves open legal questions that ultimately will end up having to be resolved by a court,' Francis said. 'We're trying to resolve it amicably because there's always room for conversation in the future if [the state] needed land.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
