Latest news with #LD958
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- 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
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Committee advances bill that would prohibit the state from seizing Wabanaki land
Passamaquoddy Tribal Rep. Aaron Dana testifies in support of prohibiting eminent domain on tribal lands before the Judiciary Committee on April 4, 2025. (Photo by Emma Davis/ Maine Morning Star) The Judiciary Committee advanced legislation on Wednesday to prevent the state from being able to seize Wabanki land for public use without consultation, though amended it in a way that appears to assuage at least some of the concerns raised by Gov. Janet Mills' administration. The committee voted 10-4 in favor of an amended version of LD 958, incorporating a proposed amendment from the Maine State Chamber of Commerce that the prohibition would only apply to current tribal trust lands, meaning land for which the federal government holds the legal title of on behalf of a tribe, and not land that may be put into trust in the future. Earlier in April, the governor came out in opposition to the bill, with her legal counsel citing the inability to predict the future needs of state government and uncertainty over the future location of tribal trust land, as the Wabanaki Nations are still eligible to acquire more under the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act. This thinking was why some on the committee did not back the plan. Sen. David Haggan (R-Penobscot) said he cast an opposing vote because he believes the power of seizing private property for public use, a principle known as eminent domain, is vital for government to properly function. The vote did not fall along party lines. Haggan was among the three Republicans who voted against the legislation — also including Reps. Rachel Henderson of Rumford and Mark Babin of Fort Fairfield — with Democratic Rep. Dani O'Halloran of Brewer joining them in opposition. While the Judiciary Committee may often be known to complicate matters, Rep. Adam Lee (D-Auburn), who voted for the legislation, argued this issue is straightforward. 'Our relationship with the Tribes is a government relationship and we should not be able to take their land, full stop,' said Rep. Adam Lee (D-Auburn). The relationship between the Wabanaki Nations and the state is complicated by the 1980 Settlement Act, which has overall resulted in the Wabanaki Nations being treated more akin to municipalities than sovereign nations. LD 958 is the next piecemeal change lawmakers and Wabanaki leaders are seeking to make to afford the Tribes greater sovereignty. While incremental alterations to the Settlement Act have been made in recent years, sweeping change has so far failed due to opposition from Mills, a Democrat. Mills did not respond to a request for comment about the amendment by the time of publication. The U.S. government's authority to exercise eminent domain is restricted by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which requires just compensation for land taken, as well as some federal laws. The 1834 federal Indian Nonintercourse Act prohibited land transactions with tribes unless authorized by Congress. However, the Settlement Act specified that that federal law was not applicable to the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation. LD 958 would amend the Settlement Act to prohibit the state from exercising eminent domain on current trust and reservation land, which is protected under federal law, though fee land — 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 Mi'kmaq Nation, which wasn't included in the Settlement Act. As advanced by the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, the bill was also amended at the request of Wabanaki leaders to remove the portion that had stipulated how the Tribes could reacquire land with such proceeds, which Passamaquoddy attorney Corey Hinton criticized as a paternalistic process. Instead, the bill now simply points to the federal takings process. LD 958 now heads to the Maine House of Representatives and Senate for floor votes. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bipartisan lawmakers, Wabanaki leaders propose next change to Settlement Act
Passamaquoddy Tribal Rep. Aaron Dana testifies in support of prohibiting eminent domain on tribal lands before the Judiciary Committee on April 4. (Emma Davis/ Maine Morning Star) A bipartisan group of lawmakers presented legislation on Friday to prevent the state from being able to seize Wabanki land for public use without consultation. For the past several Legislative sessions, leaders of the Wabanaki Nations have worked with lawmakers to try to overhaul the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act that has resulted in the tribes being treated more akin to municipalities than sovereign nations. So far, sweeping change has failed due to opposition from Gov. Janet Mills, but the executive, lawmakers and Wabanaki leaders have successfully made some targeted adjustments, including expanding tribal authority to prosecute crimes last year. LD 958 represents the next area of focus, although an omnibus bill is still expected to be considered during the second regular session of the Legislature next year. Sponsored by House Minority leader Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor) and bipartisan co-sponsors, LD 958 would amend the Settlement Act and the 2023 Mi'kmaq Nation Restoration Act — as the Mi'kmaq Nation hadn't been included in the earlier act — to prohibit eminent domain, a protection already afforded to almost all other federally recognized tribes. 'Much of our land contains irreplaceable cultural, spiritual and ecological resources,' said Passamaquoddy Tribal Rep. Aaron Dana, a co-sponsor of the bill who sits on the Judiciary Committee. 'This bill ensures those places are safeguarded and are not subject to destruction or appropriation. Too often in our history, our tribal lands have been taken, divided and exploited under the guise of progress.' The U.S. government can seize private property for public use, known as eminent domain, however that authority is restricted by the Fifth Amendment U.S. Constitution, which requires just compensation for land taken, as well as some federal laws. Rep. Rachel Henderson (R-Rumford), a co-sponsor who sits on the Judiciary Committee, questioned whether the bill is in conflict with the Constitution. It is not, Faulkingham, tribal leaders and attorneys explained, because the Constitution outlines when eminent domain can be exercised but not that it can't be further restricted. 'There's nothing in the Fifth Amendment that prohibits a state from enacting laws that says we won't do that,' Faulkingham said. LD 958 applies to land protected under federal law — trust and reservation land — but fee lands — private property for which the owner owns the title — would still be subject to state power of eminent domain. A constitutional amendment allows states to condemn individually owned plots within tribal reservations. Maine has seized Wabanaki land from the start of their intertwined histories, as the state territory today had first been inhabited by the Wabanaki people. One example of eminent domain those who testified in favor of the bill cited occurred in 1925, when Maine took land from the Passamaquoddy Tribe's Reservation at Sipayik to build Route 190 without tribal input. In 1912, the state helped a paper company pursue building a dam in Grand Falls, which flooded 6,000 acres of Passamoody land and harmed native fish, said William Nicholas, chief of the Passamoquoddy Tribe at Indian Township. 'When we talk about the Constitution of the United States and how it affects all of us, the Passamoquoddy Tribe is still waiting for our compensation for 113 years,' Nichols said, referring to the impact of the dam. Since the 1980 Act, Nichols said he views the state's efforts to build an offshore wind port as an example of attempted eminent domain. Though the effort has been effectively put on hold, Nichols criticized the state for not consulting the tribes when pursuing a 'possible invasion of our ancestral waters.' Maulian Bryant, executive director of the Wabanaki Alliance, a nonprofit created in 2020 to advocate for the recognition of the Wabanaki Nations' inherent sovereignty, said the bill encourages collaboration, not conflict. 'If a project can truly benefit the public, the State and the Tribes, the state should work with tribal leaders to find a solution,' Bryant said. 'This legislation is a protective measure to guarantee consultation and mutual agreement before any action is taken on tribal lands.' There is one component of the bill Wabanki leaders are advocating to amend. The bill stipulates how the money received for seized land has to be reinvested and how the Tribes can reacquire land with such proceeds, which Passamaquoddy attorney Corey Hinton criticized as a paternalistic process. 'It puts an unnecessary restriction on a federal process,' Hinton said. Tribal attorneys will be presenting proposed changes to the committee before the work session on Wednesday. The change will likely be to strike the language and simply point to the federal takings process. Prohibiting eminent domain has unique bipartisan support, as some of the Republican co-sponsors of the bill previously voted against omnibus sovereignty legislation and piecemeal changes considered in past sessions. Faulkingham described the bill as consistent with his political ideology, describing it as a measure to protect private property rights. 'I don't believe in the process of eminent domain against anybody, anywhere,' Faulkingham said. Other co-sponsors include Republican Sen. Marianne Moore of Washington, Democratic Rep. James Dill of Old Town and Republican Reps. Jennifer Poirier of Skowhegan, Katrina Smith of Palermo, Elizabeth Caruso of Caratunk and Arthur Kevin Mingo of Calais. Other piecemeal changes to the Settlement Act so far include establishing a formal Tribal-State collaboration process for policy making, allowed the Tribes to generate sales tax revenue from sales on their own lands — except for the Mi'kmaq Nation, though lawmakers are hoping to expand that ability to them with a bill this session — and permitting the Tribes to handle sports betting. Another bill this session supported by Wabanaki leaders would allow the Tribes to expand gambling options through internet gaming, with 16% of revenue generated going back to the state to fund services such as substance use disorder and gambling addiction programs. But casinos in Maine are opposed, arguing such a change would allow the Wabanaki Nations to monopolize the industry. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
