#TrahantReports Archives » Native Voice One

Trahant Reports – Importance of Redistricting

April 25, 2016 By NV1

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Critics said Arizona’s legislative district 7 was designed to favor Democrats. Last week the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the process used by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission . Rep. Jamescita Peshlakai is running for the Senate in that district. (Campaign photo)

The toughest challenge for any democracy is making certain that the rules of voting are fair. How fair? Well, a system must allow voters to easily toss politicians out of office.

This is Trahant Reports.

So every politician in the world proclaims that’s how it ought to be, and then, often silently, accepts or promotes rules that favor incumbency.

That is a special problem for American Indian and Alaska Native voters because when we vote we are trying to change things.

Voters want fair elections even if politicians don’t. An Arizona initiative was passed in 2000 to strip politics from the process of redistricting. The new law created a five-member Independent Redistricting Commission to take away the task from the legislature.

One result is Arizona’s 1st Congressional District, and that includes the highest percentage of Native Americans in the country. Norm DeWeaver, who does fantastic demographic work as a consultant to tribes and tribal organizations, pointed out “that this did not happen by accident.” The Navajo Human Rights Commission regularly testified and offered statistical insight before the district lines were drawn.

DeWeaver’s point: “Good things don’t happen for Indian Country without a really strong effort.”

It’s hard to understate the importance of redistricting to the success of Native Americans at the ballot box. In Arizona, Montana, and other states where the tribal vote is effective, there is a match between geography and demographics.

Basically the right district lines can give a reservation or a community the chance to vote together, as a bloc. But not every state does that. Alaska Natives are underrepresented because the district boundaries dilute that vote.

That’s a lot of background, but that brings me back to last week’s Supreme Court’s ruling about Arizona’s redistricting.

This was the second such case involving Arizona and the focus was on how equal each district must be in terms of population. The plaintiffs argued that the commission packed more people into Republican districts than Democratic ones (by a variation of 4 to 8 percent). The commission did this to specifically group minority voters, including Native Americans.

One of the districts debated in the case is Arizona Legislative District 7. This district is “underpopulated by 4.25 percent” and one reason for that is the district does not include Flagstaff because of different community interests, not politics. There are three Navajo candidates running to represent District 7 in the Legislature; Jamescita Peshlakai in the Senate and Wenona Benally and Eric Descheenie for the two House seats.

Political districts are not just lines on a map, but a reflection of a community, so it’s vitally important that every member of that community have a voice. And the opportunity to win.

I am Mark Trahant reporting.

Trahant Reports – Nevada Is A Sea Of Red, While Most Of The Voters Are Blue

February 16, 2016 By NV1

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

THIS WEEK IT’S Nevada. And it’s a state that favors Native American voters. This is Trahant Reports.

Primary elections and caucuses are quite different. In a caucus, the winner will be determined by a long list of rules ranging from geography to the number of people who voted in the last election.

So far voters have had a chance to weigh in on presidential candidates with both a caucus — in Iowa — and a primary in New Hampshire. But those states are nearly all white. Nevada on the other hand represents the diversity that America is becoming.

Nevada voters were about 65 percent white in 2012. This year’s voters are projected to drop to about 60 percent. Those numbers make it likely for a winning coalition to include white voters (a third or so) plus significant majorities from Latino, African American, Asian American and Native Americans. And that’s the makeup of the general election; the state’s Democratic Party is significantly more diverse.

Let’s be clear about the caucus system. It’s not democratic. Voters won’t show up at the polls in huge numbers. Instead it will be more like a neighborhood jam session where someone from a community is elected a delegate to a county convention. That will happen on April 2. Then at those meetings more delegates are elected to the state’s party convention. Then at those meetings more delegates are elected to the state party convention. Then another vote selecting delegates to the Democratic National Convention in July.

So it’s possible for a candidate to have a strong showing on “caucus day” and then end up with fewer delegates than the other side. That’s exactly what happened eight years ago when Hillary Clinton won the Nevada caucus (with 51 percent of the vote) only to earn three fewer delegates than Barack Obama.

The rules are written to favor delegates from rural counties — and in Nevada that means more say for American Indian voters.

The Walker River Paiute Reservation is one winner in the caucus system.

Most of the tribe’s membership lives near Schurz in Mineral County, roughly 1,200 people. In 2008 only 75 people attended the caucus yet under party rules that county’s vote counts more than 75 people, say, Reno. So if tribal members show up, they get to pick the winner in Mineral County.

There are 27 tribes in Nevada, and, unlike most states, that includes tribal governments that are based both in rural and urban areas, such as Reno and Las Vegas.

Nevada is becoming more and more a state that favors Democrats because of the population growth in urban areas — and the increasing diversity of the state.

Both the Hillary Clinton and the Bernie Sanders campaigns say they are organized across the state and in tribal communities. The Clinton campaign has been in Nevada for months and has had listening sessions across the state. But which side is more organized, both for the caucus, and for the delegate selection process that follows? We won’t know that answer until the summer.

I am Mark Trahant reporting.

Trahant Reports – Courting Native Voters

February 8, 2016 By NV1

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, left, and Hillary Rodham Clinton talk before the CNN Democratic presidential debate Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2015, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/David Becker)

Democrats running for president are starting to make their case to Native American voters.

This is Trahant Reports.

Except for one precinct in Iowa there has not been a lot of reason to court Native voters. Iowa’s Native American population is 1/2 of 1 percent. New Hampshire is 2/10th of one percent. These states do not look like the rest of the country.

But Nevada, where Democrats will caucus on Feb. 20, is even more diverse than the rest of the country.

Brookings Institute scholar William Frey describes Nevada as “the epitome of a state that witnessed an explosion of diversity in recent decades. In 2000 its electorate was 76 percent white, compared with 58 percent now.”

So both Democratic campaigns are in Native communities urging people to participate in their caucus. To win a caucus, you have to get people to go to a meeting; it’s not quite as simple as casting a ballot.

The Clinton campaign has had Native American advisors since last fall when Hillary Clinton addressed members of the National Congress of American Indians via YouTube.

Clinton said:

“Hello NCAI … As Senator I cosponsored legislation to improve health care for American Indians. I worked to improve tribal colleges and other Native institutions. As Secretary of State, I advocated for the U.S. to endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I did these things because the United States has a sacred trust with Native Americans and we need to do a much better job of keeping that trust. You are our neighbors, our friends, our fellow Americans.You deserve a president who will honor your sovereignty, learn from the past, and fight for your futures. That’s exactly the kind of president I will be.”

The Clinton campaign has three senior Native American policy advisers, Rion Ramierz Jr., Holly Cook Macarro, and Charlie Galbraith.

Now the Sanders campaign has its team in place.

At a recent meeting of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, Nicole Willis was introduced as a special advisor to the Bernie Sanders campaign. Willis is a member of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation in Oregon, she has worked for the Obama administration, and was with the Obama campaign.

She said Sanders has already staked out positions. If elected president, Sanders will continue with the annual Tribal Nations Conference started by President Obama, hire a senior Native American advisor on at the White House, and expand the Violence Against Women Act. Sanders has also said he would find additional money for the Generation Indigenous initiative.

Sanders also promised that tribes would have a seat on the table on a broad set of issues. In the first 100 days he said there would be a summit on climate change and tribes would be full participants.

This is Mark Trahant reporting.

Trahant Reports – Counterfactual

January 5, 2016 By NV1

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

The first votes in the presidential election are less than a month away. This is Trahant Reports.

2016 starts with one more debate about the Affordable Care Act. The House of Representatives is set to pass this week yet another repeal of the law. This one will actually get to President Obama’s desk … where it will be quickly vetoed.

You see the bill has no chance of becoming law. It’s just a statement, saying that Republicans are against the Affordable Care Act (as if we did not know that).

I have been wondering about what statements Indian Country could make about elections — we can raise an idea even if we know it will not become law. One way to do that is using what’s called a “counterfactual.” This is an exercise in thinking that starts with “what if …” and then you propose a speculative, even preposterous idea.

What if the framers of the U.S. Constitution had gone beyond the commerce clause and really incorporated tribal nations into the mainstream of political discourse?

My answer to my own counterfactual: Add tribes to the Electoral College.

It’s not like the United States is a democratic model now. It’s not representative. The Senate represents millionaires not people. There are 38 million citizens in California who get the same two votes out of 100 as the 576,000 residents of Wyoming. Collectively, Indian Country has eight times as many people as Wyoming and not a single vote in the Senate. By land mass, Indian Country’s 50-plus million acres are bigger than almost half the states. Even breaking that number up by population, Cherokee’s 819,000 people Is still larger than Wyoming.

My counterfactual argument starts with the premise that the system is not democratic, so include tribes. If not in the House or Senate, then why did not the Electoral College, the small number of people who actually will elect the next president?

How could that work? Based on the number of tribal members or citizens, a grouping “tribal nations” would add up to at least ten, almost eleven electoral college votes.

It would work better because the presidential debate narrows to about ten competitive states. The other 40 states already greatly favor either Democrats or Republicans. So that narrow field of competition makes it nearly impossible for topics such as federal-tribal relations, Treaty rights, or subsistence to get attention.

Another problem with the crazy way the U.S. elects presidents, is that the electoral college could actually tie with 269 electoral votes. If that happened, the House of Representatives would decide the next president, setting up a certain Republican win. In 1800 Thomas Jefferson won that way.

In my counterfactual, Indian Country could break that tie.

And we could host a platform for a broader discussion about issues such as the place of tribal nations in the country and in the world.

The problem with a counterfactual is that at some point that “what if?” falls apart. You can’t prove speculation.

But what Indian Country can do … Is go out and vote. That would be the best method of making this system a bit more democratic.

I am Mark Trahant reporting.

Trahant Reports – Indian Country Wins With More Representation In The States

November 23, 2015 By NV1

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Link to interactive map:

https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1tEoisSEgkJkXPYmnViYoqTAFLDQuNzNfT35kJQPi#map:id=3

At least 73 American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians serve in 17 state legislatures. That statistic is important for several reasons. This is Trahant Reports. I’ve built a new data base of Native Americans serving in state governments. You can find it on the Native Voice One web site.

IF you look at the body of work of Native American state senators and representatives, you’ll find them advocating for better services, more funding and improving relationships between tribal nations and state governments.

Montana best demonstrates the growing influence of Native American voters.

Some twenty years ago, Montana was much like any other state with significant Native American population. It only one or two Native Americans serving in the legislature. Then a candidate win in 1997. And again in 2003. By 2007 Native Americans in Montana reached a high of ten seats in the legislature; that represented some 6.6 percent of that body. And Montana’s population is 7.4 percent Native American. Today there are 3 Native Americans in the Montana Senate and 5 in the House, some 5.3 percent of the state legislature.

To put that figure in national terms: If Congress were 5.3 percent Native American, there would be 5 U.S. Senators and 21 members of the House. Even if you adjust for population, the number of Native American members in Congress would have to more than double to equal the effort in Montana.

One of Montana’s success stories is the community organizing work of Western Native Voice. Leading up to the 2012 election, Western Native Voice set a goal of registering some 3,000 Native Americans for the primary and 5,000 for the general elections. Western Native Voice exceeded that goal by some 1,300 additional voters.

The state with the largest number of Native American legislators is Oklahoma with 14. It’s also the only state with a balance between Democrats and Republicans (8 Democrats and 6 Republicans).Nationally of the 70 elected Native Americans in state legislatures, 59 are Democrats and 11 are Republicans.

State offices are often a source of talent for higher elective posts, ranging from Congress to the White House. Remember it was only 1996 when Barack Obama was elected to the Illinois state Senate.

Across the country it’s clear that Native American representation before state governments significantly trails the population of American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. There are 40 members serving in Alaska’s House and 20 in that state’s Senate. Yet only five Alaska Natives represent in the House — or 12.5 percent — and two in the Senate. Alaska has the highest voting age population in the country, some 17 percent.

However the growth of Native American voters — and elected officials — is only at the beginning of a trend. We know our population is growing faster than the general population. And in many states there is already the numbers to build a winning election coalition that includes the Native community.

Look across the country and see why the Native Americans elected now are the next generation of leaders in the Congress — and even the White House. If you want to know who will be Indian Country’s Barack Obama, look to the states. Her name will be Paulette Jordan, Peggy Flanagan or Denise Juneau.

I am Mark Trahant reporting.

Trahant Reports – Denise Juneau’s 54 Generations, First In Congress

November 16, 2015 By NV1

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Denise Juneau is campaigning to be the first Native American woman in Congress. She’s already won a statewide race in Montana so she knows what it takes to win.

A Native American woman in Congress? This is Trahant Reports.

Denise Juneau, a member of the Mandan Hidatsa Tribes, and Montana’s two-term Superintendent of Public Instruction, is running for Congress. She’ll face incumbent Republican Ryan Zinke.

One of her first pitches is fantastic, saying her Montana roots run deep. Her family’s ancestry traces back to before Montana was even a state, possibly 54 generations on this soil.

Fifty-four generations. That’s cool. Juneau has many issues that work for her, especially jobs. As schools’ chief, Juneau increased graduate rates to the highest level ever recorded.

That’s the news.

But here is why this race is so important: Juneau can win. Think about what it will mean to have her voice in Congress. She is already the first Native American woman in history to win a statewide election — and soon could be the first to serve in Congress.

Now the nitty-gritty. Juneau can win because she’s already earned votes from Montanans, 235,397 four years ago when she was re-elected schools’ chief. To put that number in perspective: The winning Montana Senate candidate had only 213,709 votes. (The huge difference is because the first number was during the 2012 presidential election year and that’s when Juneau’s best voters will turnout.)

What’s more: Montana is changing. The population is only about 6 percent American Indian now, but if you look at the schools (where Juneau spends her days) that number is more than double.

Juneau’s first challenge is money. Her opponent has already raised more than $800,000. But if Montana is seen as a “pick up” opportunity, then the national money will be sure to follow. It will also be interesting to see how much money is raised from Indian Country to further Juneau’s campaign.

I think there is one more possibility: this could be a wave election. If the Republicans nominate an outsider for president — Donald Trump or Ben Carson for example — there will be little support for candidates across the border. And by support I mean less money and less organization.

Not only that, no matter who wins the Republican nomination, will have a significant block of voters who see the winner as “not their kind of Republican.” The Republican Party is divided three ways. There are Tea Party folks, establishment Republicans, and Libertarians. No matter who wins the nomination, some body will be on the losing side.

I think this could be a national trend. But it’s even more likely in Montana. A 2010 study by the Cato Institute called Montana “the state with the highest Libertarian constituency in the nation.”

Democrats, on the other hand, will be united behind Juneau.

I am Mark Trahant reporting.

Trahant Reports – Canada’s New Government And The Music Of Elections

November 9, 2015 By NV1

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Events in Canada this week show why elections matter. This is Trahant Reports.

Yes, there will be better policies put in place: Perhaps a return to government-to-government relations with First Nations; more federal investment in Indigenous education; and, a serious, nationwide probe of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. All these things show a government moving in the right direction.

But there is something else: tone. The music of elections.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau delivered the message that Aboriginal Canadians are significant intellectual contributors to Canada’s political discourse. Trudeau’s appointments, his first day of images, really set a high bar for what hope elections can stir in a community, including those representing First Nations, Inuit and Metis.

Most of us are surrounded by a narrative that says real shared power takes a long time. We have to move slow, methodically, bringing people along.

But that’s not what happened in Canada. Trudeau’s appointments were like a lightening bolt. In one instant the cabinet of Canada is representative of gender, of region, and, of Aboriginal people. When he was asked, “why?” about gender, the prime minister replied, “because it’s 2015.”

Assembly of First Nations Chief Perry Bellegarde told the CBC that Trudeau’s appointments begin a “new era of reconciliation” and the appointments send a powerful message about a new relationship between Canada and Indigenous Peoples.

The new minister of Justice and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould shows how a government can match diversity with extraordinary talent and experience. Much has been said about the attorney general’s role as a regional tribal chief and as an advocate for reconciliation with Aboriginal people. But she’s also been British Columbia crown prosecutor. The fact is she’s extraordinarily well qualified for this post. Wilson-Raybould is a member of the We Wai Kai Nation. When she was a child, her father said it was her goal to be Prime Minister.

That same richness of experience is true for the new minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Hunter Tootoo. He is Inuit and has a track record on issues such as economic development and housing. But he also was Speaker of the Nunavut Legislative Assembly.

Imagine what these kinds of appointments would be like in the United States: A leader of a fishing tribe named to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Or a tribal judge and attorney as the next United States Attorney General. Lightening bolt.

Canada, of course, is a different political system. Cabinet members must also be elected Members of Parliament. Here it would mean getting elected to Congress before you could be Interior Secretary. Yet even with the political differences, there is a shared sense of optimism after an election. Every government starts off with hope and the excitement of possibility of making people’s lives better.

I am Mark Trahant.

Trahant Reports – Omnibus: Budgets, A Native Voice In Seattle, and Eyes On Montana

November 2, 2015 By NV1

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Omnibus is a Latin word that means “for all.” In legislation it means cramming everything into a bill that you think can pass. That’s what we’re doing with this edition of Trahant Reports.

First up: A deal in Congress has lifted the caps from the Budget Control Act, or the sequester, and it raises the debt limit until March 2017.

This deal ends distractions such as new government shut downs or a defunding of Planned Parenthood until well after the election. Unfortunately the details, such as the actual budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service, still have to be written, between now and Dec. 11

The politics of this deal are stunning, but, unfortunately, probably only temporary. More Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans. So the Republican Leadership actually picked a bipartisan course.

Any budget that passes with more Democrats than Republicans is considered awful. Even the new Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said the process stinks.

But the deal will make it easier for Ryan to govern his caucus because it takes away the threat of government shutdowns and general chaos. Ryan’s goal will be to unite the Republicans so that what ever measures come forward next will be debated within the party. At least that’s the theory.

Second item: This week there is an important race in Seattle. Debora Juarez is a candidate for Seattle City Council. She’s a member of the Blackfeet Tribe, grew up in the Seattle-Tacoma area, and is campaigning on neighborhood issues. That means things people care about: more sidewalks, better bus service, and affordable housing.

The Seattle Times said in its endorsement editorial: “In a crowded field, Debora Juarez stands out. … She would bring intellectual rigor and ideological independence to the council.”

It doesn’t get any better than this.

Of course great candidates make all the difference in elections. They bring experience and poise to the campaign. That’s why so many eyes are watching Montana right now. The only Native American to hold a statewide office, Denise Juneau, is considering a run for the U.S. House. She’s currently Montana’s Superintendent of Public Instruction and a member of the Mandan and Hidatsa Tribes. She grew up in Browning on the Blackfeet Reservation.

Two years ago there was a lot of interest in Juneau running for an open U.S. Senate seat. I thought it would have been an interesting race, but it would have been a long shot. The problem is the type of voters Juneau would need only vote in presidential election years and that race would have been a low-turnout election. So she opted to stick with the job she loves, running public education.

Juneau is now at her term limit. Her schools’ job will end. And since it’s a presidential year, the House seat is awfully tempting. It’s a seat that can be won. Stay tuned.

A Changing Arctic Presents Incredible Challenges and Opportunities for Indigenous Peoples

October 26, 2015 By NV1

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

US Ambassador David Balton, Senior Arctic Official, Arctic Council

A changing Arctic? A region that presents incredible challenges and opportunities for Indigenous People. This is Trahant Reports.

One of the unique opportunities involves governance of the region. The Arctic Council is eight nations who work together on complex issues ranging from climate change to a sustainable future. Right now the United States is chairing this body for the next two years.

What makes this international body unique, though, is that it includes indigenous representation as “permanent participants.”

US Ambassador David Balton explains: “I am not aware of another international forum that has representatives of Indigenous groups engaged the way the Arctic Council does. They are at the table as, essentially, equal partners with the governments. And they bring a lot to that table. Among other things their populations span multiple countries” (with the exception of Russia.)

“They have special needs and special points of view that get aired. Officially they don’t participate in decision-making as such, those are for eight governments. But the reality is the governments … will not take decisions that are opposed by so-called permanent participants. Part of the on-going work of the Arctic Council is figure out how to deal with the Indigenous Peoples’ of the Arctic better.”

One of the issues that’s of particular interest to me involves climate change and “adaptation.” Most of the debate about climate change involves “mitigation.” That idea is humans are the primary cause of climate change so if we reduce our carbon emissions we can limit the impacts. But the second topic in climate change is “adaptation.” That means doing what’s required to build higher sea walls, protect pipelines from permafrost damage, and, all too often, move villages inland because of eroding shorelines. It also means figuring out how animals and fish will react to the loss of habitat, when sea ice, or plant life disappear. And, of course, less wildlife and fish too often means less food for Native people.

The Arctic Council examines and incorporates “Indigenous knowledge” in its database. As one recent document puts it: “Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge and its potential to advise adaptation mechanisms across the Arctic is a common theme. Moreover, scientific, traditional and experience-based knowledge in combination are recognized as key factors for a sustainable Arctic future. Generating grassroots support is the most important condition for sustainability.”

How we build a sustainable future in the Arctic? That’s the key question as we figure out how we and our children will live in a changing environment. Of course that’s not just an Arctic issue. I am Mark Trahant reporting from Anchorage.

Trahant Reports – Canada’s Missing and Murdered Women

October 5, 2015 By NV1

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

A rally on the steps of the Manitoba Legislature October 4th called attention to the 1,200 Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women. Canada’s election day is October 19 and many Native groups are hoping a strong turnout will result in a national investigation and proposed solutions.

This is Trahant Reports. A similar story was told across Canada this weekend: Too many Native women have gone missing or have been murdered.

In Winnipeg, one event organizer, Hilda Anderson-Pyrz, put it this way:

“As well as Aboriginal women, Indigenous women and girls we all deserve to be loved and valued and to feel safe. That we shouldn’t have to live in a society and worry about if we’re next. If we are going to be next to be murdered or to go missing. We need to feel safe. It’s our right to feel safe. ”

So on the steps of the Manitoba Legislature many rows of bouquets — shaped as a butterfly. Each flower a reminder of of so many loved ones who have been victims at of violence.

This is the tenth year of vigils; a tragedy that’s compounded by how little has changed since the movement began.

In a few days Canada will elect a new government. The hope is that through the ballot box the issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls will take on new importance — and at the very least there will be a serious national inquiry.

Three of the four major political parties have agreed that there should be a major investigation and solutions put forward to the end epidemic of violence. But the party that said “no” is the current government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Indeed some have called the Harper years a “war” on First Nations because of his emphasis on resource extraction and budget cuts that disproportionately impact native communities.

Prominent Aboriginal Canadians from musician and broadcaster Wab Kinew to the new Mrs. Universe, Ashley Callingbull, have urged Native people to turn out and vote. Perry Bellegarde, grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations, recently told the CBC that he will vote in this election, ending his long time practice of abstention so that a new government might close the “gap between First Nations people and Canadians.”

Aboriginal Canadians are a higher percentage of the population than voters in the states — representing 4.3 percent of the country’s population.

All four major parties have Native candidates running for parliament. According to the nonpartisan IndigiPoll: Twenty-two Native people are standing for office representing the New Democrats, 18 as Liberals, 9 as Greens and 5 conservatives. In a parliamentary form of government, the parties elect the national leader.

One concern about this election is a new voter law that may make it difficult for First Nations residents. The law requires two forms of identification, including one with an address and that’s a thorny problem when many reserves do not have street names.

Canada’s election is October 19th.

One election in Canada (or the US for that matter) won’t automatically improve lives. But it can be a way to turn out a government that’s been hostile to Native issues. And at least start the framework for a better structure.

I am Mark Trahant reporting from Winnipeg, Manitoba.