Its Not Personal, Just Protecting Our Sovereignty

1410 Words3 Pages

During the 1970s American Indians in California and other parts of the U.S were at a disadvantage that included unemployment, poverty, deteriorating homes, and unsanitary living conditions. As a means to deal with the situation, some tribes included gaming (bingo or poker games) to their way of life. The goal of tribal government was to make the reservation self sufficient (Weeber 85). Although, some tribes did adopt gaming, others have not because of moral or traditional reasons or because they live in an areas far away from patrons (Canby 332). As a result, their lives continue to lack electricity, clean water, paved roads, and medical facilities (Barker 155). In this paper, I will show how the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians flourished from poverty because they adopted gaming as a form of economic growth. Then, I will explain the internal issue, known as “disenrollment” using sovereignty as the backdrop to show, why casino tribes (as any other sovereign government) have the right to denied “membership” to long standing members.
Before the Pechanga Band, began gaming operations on their reservation, other Indian tribes in California were exercising their sovereignty through poker and card games. The Cabazon Band of Mission Indians operated poker and card games “against” state laws. The state of California insisted its laws were being defied by the tribe, so it went after the Cabazon Band citing Public Law 280 (1953), which had granted the state criminal jurisdiction over Indian reservations. California claimed that the Cabazon’s band small gaming operations were criminal, and for that reason should be control or ban by the state. As a sovereign people, the Cabazon Band responded pointing to tribal ordinances supported by the ...

... middle of paper ...

...harge of membership to the tribe may end up disenroll (Weeber 91). The enrollment committee accused Gomez of falsifying federal and local records (Barker 167) then decided that Gomez was to be removed from the Band’s Enrollment Book (Barker 168). After Gomez was kicked out from the Pechanga Band he filed a civil complaint in state court alleging that tribal officials did not follow its constitution (Barker 147).
Gomez, like other individuals that have been rejected from their tribe, appeal their case in tribal court (if available), but usually are turned away. Then, they fall back on state and federal courts, but court case opinions like Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez makes it impossible for the courts to get involved in the issue at hand. Usually state and federal courts point their finger at tribal sovereignty as the cause for their non-involvement (Beiser 77).

Open Document