Top 10 Reasons Republicans Oppose Protecting Native Women

1o. “House Republican leadership just doesn’t get it.” – Sen. Patty Murray. 9.   The incidence of violence against Native women isn’t that bad– House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. Rep. No. 112-480, at 227 (2012). This is absolutely false. Native American women suffer violent crime at the highest rates in the United States.

8.  “Legitimate rape” – Rep. Todd Akin.

7.  “The non-Indian doesn't get a fair trial" in tribal courts – Sen. Chuck Grassley. This is also false. Numerous studies have found the guarantees and traditions of fairness in tribal statutory and common law are equivalent to – and, indeed, sometimes even go far beyond – those granted in state and federal forums. And if there is any deviation, the federal Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. 1301-1303, assures non-Indian domestic offenders due process of law in tribal courts.

6. “If non-tribe members are tried in tribal courts, they are not protected by the United States Constitution and they have no right of appeal to the federal courts” – Sen. John Cornyn. This too is false. A non-member domestic criminal can seek a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court.

5.  A tribal jurisdictional fix “would likely be ruled unconstitutional by the courts.” – Sen. John Barasso. Congressional recognition of inherent tribal power to prosecute non-Indian domestic abusers is constitutional, as determined by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Lara (2004). There is always the chance that the court will overrule Lara and change the state of the law, but to say that a law is currently unconstitutional because of something that the court might do in the future is nonsensical.

4.  They now have a token female to hide behind: Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers. McMorris Rodgers has recently voiced opposition to S. 47, arguing that the additional protections for Native Americans, immigrants, and gays and lesbians have no place in the law. McMorris Rodgers has in the past paid lip service to the tribal provisions, stating that she would “reach out to other GOP congresswomen to urge their support for the inclusive VAWA bill.” Apparently, she has now abandoned this position.

3.  Political Misogyny. This is a front in the very real, calculated GOP war against unmarried women, who after all, constitute the Democrat base. In the presidential election, married women backed Romney, 53 percent to 46 percent, while unmarried women chose Obama 68 percent to 30 percent. Political expediency has incented GOP’s anti-woman platform because unmarried women are opposed to Republicans’ policy goals on rape, birth control, abortion, equal pay, employment discrimination, and so on.

2.  Because they are Native American women. Republicans believe they can ignore issues affecting Native women, and they may be right. Unless Indian Country and its allies stand up to the GOP's anti-woman agenda, Republicans will succeed in further marginalizing Native women. Indeed, the GOP will prevail without even losing votes from their base, which, to be sure, includes few if any Indian women.

1.  Republicans are not being honest. There is no possible reasoned stance against VAWA. It’s Pascal’s Wager in the domestic violence context: the downside of failing to act on domestic violence in Indian Country outweighs any possible harm caused by acting. There must be another reason for their opposition. One they refuse to discuss in public (see #2).

Gabriel S. Galanda, Ryan D. Dreveskracht, and Anthony S. Broadman practice law with Galanda Broadman, PLLC. They pride themselves as "an Indian Country law firm," representing tribal governments, businesses and members in all varieties of dispute and business dealing. Ryan's article, "Congress' Treatment of the Violence Against Women Act: Adding Insult to Native Women's Injury," will be featured in the next edition of the University of Miami Race and Social Justice Law Review. 

Seattle Tribal Lawyer Gabe Galanda Argues for the ACLU Before Washington Supreme Court

On January 22, 2013, Gabe Galanda appeared before the Washington State Supreme Court on behalf of the ACLU of Washington, to co-argue State v. Clark. His argument can be watched on TVW (at 35:49). The case concerns whether a county search warrant, obtained and executed by city police without any attempt to involve the tribal police or court, lacked authority of law, since it authorized the search of a tribal member’s home situated on tribal trust land.

The briefing is available here, including the amicus brief co-authored on behalf of the ACLU by Gabe and Ryan Dreveskracht.

Gabriel "Gabe" Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  Gabe assists tribal governments and businesses in all matters of tribal sovereignty and self-governance, especially in legal opposition to federal, state and local government encroachment.  Gabe can be reached at 206.691.3631 or gabe@galandabroadman.com.

President Obama Can Do More For Indian Country

In consideration of recent posts on the successes of President Obama vis-a-vis Indian Country in his first term (for example, here and here), consider a few of Indian Country's trials and tribulations on his watch. 1. Disrespect for Tribal Territorial Autonomy: Agencies within the likes of Justice and Labor, led by the President's appointees, too frequently encroach upon tribal sovereignty and territorial autonomy without appropriate consultation with tribal authorities, as required by Treaties, federal statutes and those agency's own consultation plans and policies. In many respects, it remains business as usual for many federal agencies in terms of entering Indian Country at will to carry out the agency's prerogative. In other words, President Obama's promise of consultation, to federal folks on the ground, is "just words" -- especially given the President's endorsement of the UN Declaration and its "free, prior and informed consent" mandate for nation-state entry onto indigenous lands. I agree with those tribal leaders who insist that the President do more to ensure that "free, prior and informed consent" be integrated into federal policy and action as to issues of tribal implication.

2. Federally Sanctioned State Regulation/Taxation of N2N Commerce: Under guise of the PACT Act, Justice and its ATF have expressly sided with state governments in the enforcement of state civil regulatory laws and tax statutes against tribal governments and entrepreneurs who sell value-generated and other tobacco products from reservation to reservation. Despite the Fed's status as Trustee to Indians, which trust relationship the U.S. does not have to states, the Obama Administration has done so without any meaningful consultation with Indian Country. Even worse, the U.S. threatens to set a precedent of state regulation and taxation of any form of inter-tribal or reservation-to-reservation commerce or trade. Justice and ATF must immediately stand down, in deference to Indian self-sufficiency.

3. President's Unholy Alliance With Big Labor: President Obama struck deals with both Big Labor and Indian Country during his first election. Over the past four years, the Department of Labor has launched un unprecedented assault against Indian Country on behalf of labor unions and employees. In other words, the President has chosen the side of labor interests, which should come as no surprise given his strong predisposition to labor unions. Under banner of the NLRA, most notably, but also OSHA and ERISA, the agency has aggressively challenged tribal self-governance and in the process dishonored notions of tribal territorial authority and federal-tribal consultation. What Labor ultimately threatens to do is ensure that all federal labor laws of so-called general applicability, uniformly govern labor and employment in Indian Country, to the exclusion of tribal self-governance over those areas. Labor should also stand down, in deference to tribal self-governance.

4. Business As Usual With Interior Post-Cobell: It also remains business as usual for the Department of the Interior and BIA as to Indian trust land management, or mismanagement. Indeed, despite so-called "lessons learned" from Cobell, Interior and the BIA have not fundamentally changed the way they carry out the federal trust responsibility to Indian landowners, especially allottees. The $1.9 billion dollar Indian land consolidation, or "buy-back" program, exclaims this point, as Professor David Wilkins observes; instead of exploring new ways to resolve the fractionation epidemic, like Indian estate planning, Interior proposes to band-aid the disease, by creating a $285 million land consolidation/buy-back program, for career BIA employees to administer. All the while, they ignore and do nothing to propose resolution to the real problem of fractionation: non-Indian ownership of undivided interests in allotments. In other words, the more things change (Cobell), the more they stay the same -- and the same will hold true for Cobell-style Indian land controversy.

This critique is not to suggest that the President has not done more for American indigenous people that any President before him; indeed, he has done more than his ever predecessor. Nor is it to suggest naiveté that any President can stand absolutely allegiant to Indian Country in true respect for tribal sovereignty; indeed, no United States President can or ever will. But this critique is to suggest that the Obama Administration can, fundamentally, do more to respect the inherent rights of Native Nations and to resolve historic federal-tribal atrocities, during the President's next four years in the White House.  Yes he can.

Gabriel "Gabe" Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  Gabe assists tribal governments and businesses in all matters of tribal economic development and diversification, including entity formation and related tax strategy. He also helps tribes and tribal businesses and joint ventures withstand attack from federal, state and local government. Gabe can be reached at 206.691.3631 or gabe@galandabroadman.com.

Streaming Podcast: Gabe Galanda Offers Indian Gaming Forecast Via 113th Congress

Today, Gabe Galanda spoke on the CEM Audio Edge's Gaming Law News live show, regarding gaming issues from a tribal perspective and what the 113th Congress might or might not do to address and resolve these issues. The show gathers attorneys, policymakers and commentators to discuss crucial legislation affecting state and federal jurisdictions around the world. A few excerpts:

As a tribal advocate, I do not believe that tribal i-gaming should be regulated by states. First and foremost, to the extent tribal i-gaming is confined to Indian Country, as a matter of tribal sovereignty, states should have no role in its regulation. That said, I do generally agree that for sake of integrity of game play, dual regulation makes sense; meaning tribal and federal regulation, as we have with Class II Indian gaming.

States should also not play a regulatory role in i-gaming because unlike the situation in 1988, where generally speaking tribes did not have the regulatory experience that states like Nevada and New Jersey had then and as such, tribes needed help in gaming regulation, today tribes are very sophisticated in gaming regulation. In fact, tribal regulators have proven themselves more sophisticated than state regulators in many instances.

Moreover, states will use any Congressionally delegated regulatory role to extort taxes or revenue-sharing from i-gaming tribes, which is patently acceptable.

Based on Congress’s pace to date, it’s a safe bet that we’re heading toward state-by-state regulation of Internet gaming – tribes will have to fit into the cracks that such regulations create. . . . It will be a tribe by tribe process, in which tribes attempt to comply with both the requirements of IGRA and their compacts.

A vote on the [Akaka Carcieri fix] bill did not happen in 2012. U.S. Senators from Rhode Island and Northern California have done everything in their power to stymie a Carcieri fix, and successfully so as of yet. As long as they continue to do so, a Carcieri fix may not even get a vote in 2013.

The result of this [Patchak] decision is that a party claiming harm to property nearby proposed trust land has standing under the APA to bring a lawsuit. This creates considerable risk for casino developers because the statute of limitations under the APA is considerably longer than that of the QTA – creating much more time that a party has to challenge the DOI's trust transaction.

Two days after the fiscal cliff debacle, I would note that the Congress delivered some unexpected good news to Indian Country, in the form of tax relief. Although not gaming specific – of course Indian gaming is per se tax exempt – Congress passed a number of tax fixes that are advantageous to tribal governments engaged in economic development or diversification efforts.

Looking further into 2013, it is impossible to predict how the anemically bipartisan Congress will behave relative to i-gaming in general, or any matter of Indian gaming, be it TOGA or a Carcieri-fix. Generally speaking, I do not predict good things to come Indian Country via the 113th Congress. Any legalized inter-state i-gaming will somehow erode tribal sovereignty. . . . As such, the status quo, at least on i-gaming, might not be such a bad thing.

Gabriel "Gabe" Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  Gabe assists tribal governments and businesses in all matters of tribal economic development and diversification, including entity formation and related tax strategy. He also helps tribes and tribal businesses and joint ventures withstand attack from federal, state and local government. Gabe can be reached at 206.691.3631 or gabe@galandabroadman.com.

Congress, Protect Native Women NOW

The Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) and its protections for Native American women must be immediately sent to President Obama’s desk for signature.  For sake of protecting all American women, including the First American women, the matter should not be delayed another day.  The VAWA Reauthorization must be passed by Congress NOW. Thirty-five years ago, in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978), the Supreme Court stripped tribal governments of the power to prosecute non-Indians who enter Indian Country and commit violence against Indian women.  A criminal jurisdictional void has existed in tribal communities ever since.  Last April, the Senate passed S. 1925, a VAWA Reauthorization bill that would finally restore tribal criminal jurisdiction over the perpetrators of these attacks.  The bill was passed with bipartisan support.

In May, however, the Republican-controlled House introduced its version of the VAWA, H.R. 4970, which omitted the Senate’s tribal provisions.  On May 16, the House passed H.R. 4970, without including the tribal jurisdiction provisions.  The bill passed strictly on party lines.

Since then, the VAWA reauthorization has lingered.  And, apparently, it is not due to partisan politics at this time.  This year’s elections saw women voters re-elect Barack Obama for a second term, send more women than ever before to Congress, and deliver a powerful message to the GOP that they need to do a better job of appealing to women.

On December 3rd, as a result of that American female mandate, Republican House Members Darrell Issa, Tom Cole, Mike Simpson, John Kline and Patrick McHenry changed their position on tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian abusers in Indian Country; they introduced H.R. 6625, a bill that includes the tribal jurisdiction provision, provided that a defendant can remove the case to federal court if he believes his rights have been violated by a tribal government.

On December 6th, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy confirmed that all issues have been resolved to get the VAWA reauthorization bill passed, except for the tribal jurisdiction provision.  On December 11, ten House Republicans broke ranks to sign a letter urging House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to take up and pass a bill including the provisions of S. 1925.

Just today, December 18, all twelve Democratic Senate women joined together to call on the women of the House Republican Conference to work with their leadership and finally pass a VAWA with tribal protections.  The letter notes that S. 1925 “is widely supported by law enforcement officials, victims’ advocate groups, and the public at large.”  Indeed, the letter goes on, “until now, this bill has been among the most broadly supported measures considered in both the House and Senate and has only become more so over time. . . . Support for the legislation’s renewal in 2000 [garnered] a 95-0 vote in the Senate, and a 371-1 vote in the House.  And an even stronger consensus emerged in 2005, with unanimous approval in the Senate, and a 415-4 vote in the House.”

The letter then reminds House Republicans of the directive set by American women voters: “In 2013 and beyond, the women of the House and Senate are primed to play an even larger role in guiding national policy and we should do so by working across party lines. . . . All women should be protected and introducing into this legislation the notion that some women subject to violence deserve to be protected while others do not is something we believe we can all agree is unacceptable.  We should not pick and choose which victims of abuse to help and which to ignore.”

Things are coming together for a VAWA reauthorization.

It appears that Rep. Cantor’s unwavering stance on the issue is all that stands in the way.  According to the Huffington Post, Vice President Joe Biden, sponsor of the original 1994 VAWA, has been in meetings with Rep. Cantor to get a deal done.  But “Cantor is refusing to accept any added protections for Native American women that would give expanded jurisdiction to tribes.”  Rep. Cantor needs to stand down.

The 112th Congress will end on January 3, 2013.  And unless the VAWA reauthorization bill is passed with the tribal provisions intact, there will be no VAWA reauthorization.  According to the White House, the President will veto any VAWA reauthorization bill that does not include protections for Indian Country domestic violence victims.

The time is now for VAWA reauthorization.  Native women cannot wait any longer.  Please tell House Republicans to urge Rep. Cantor to allow a VAWA that includes tribal protections, here.  Majority Leader Cantor can also be reached at 202.225.2815.

Ryan Dreveskracht is an Associate at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian majority-owned law firm. His practice focuses on representing businesses and tribal governments in public affairs, energy, gaming, taxation, and general economic development. His forthcoming work, “Congress' Treatment of The Violence Against Women Act: Adding Insult to Native Womens' Injury” will be published in the University of Miami Race and Social Justice Law Review.  He can be reached at 206.909.3842 or ryan@galandabroadman.com.

Seattle Tribal Lawyer Ryan Dreveskracht Publishes Indian Alternative Energy Article

Ryan Dreveskracht has published "Alternative Energy in American Indian Country: Catering to Both Sides of the Coin," in the latest edition of Energy Law Journal.

Given the bipartisan Congressional support for tribal energy development in Indian country, one would assume that tribal governments and their citizens would be playing a large role in making this come to fruition. But, as noted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI), “[o]ur existing laws are falling short of fully enabling tribes to develop their natural resources.”

Has anyone stopped to ask, though, whether tribal governments and their citizens even want to develop alternative energies on their lands? A peripheral reading of recent media accounts would suggest that tribes throughout the Nation are voicing active opposition to alternative energy projects.

This article looks at both sides of the renewable energy “coin” in relation to American Indian country. On the one side, at least according to some recent media depictions, it appears that tribal governments and their citizens are adamantly opposed to any energy development on their lands. All told, however, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Section A of this article will explain that tribes merely seek a seat at the table when decisions are made regarding developments that will adversely affect their lands or areas of cultural significance, and why this is important. Indeed, contrary to being opposed to alternative energy development, Tribes are very actively seeking to develop their lands, and to do so in a manner that is consistent with their cultures and traditions. But, large-scale alternative energy projects are virtually absent from Indian country. Thus, Section B of this article will discuss what is hindering these projects from coming to fruition. Finally, Section C of the article will discuss what Congress is – and is not – doing regarding the two sides of the coin.

Ryan Dreveskracht is an Associate at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian majority-owned law firm. His practice focuses on representing businesses and tribal governments in public affairs, energy, gaming, taxation, and general economic development. He can be reached at 206.909.3842 or ryan@galandabroadman.com.

Rob McKenna: Tribal Friend or Foe?

In a recent University of Miami Race and Social Justice Law Review article, I discussed Senate Bill 1925, a version of Violence Against Women Act that attempts to reauthorize tribal governments’ exercise of criminal jurisdiction over certain non-Indians who violate Indian women.  Regarding the State of Washington’s various political players’ stances on the issue of tribal governments’ abilities to protect Native women, I wrote:

Washington’s Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) has . . . vowed to reject any agreement with the House that does not include the tribal [jurisdiction] provisions, as has Fellow Washingtonian Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA). . . . At the same time, Washington State Republican gubernatorial hopeful Rob McKenna advocates for mere “tribal civil authority” over non-Indian[s], stopping short of recommending the jurisdictional power that is needed to bring criminal justice – and safety – to Indian Country.  While Attorney General McKenna is at least addressing the issue with some thought, which is much more than can be said of his fellow GOPers, fines and civil restraining orders are not adequate responses to reservation murder, rape, and sexual assault.  McKenna’s gubernatorial opponent, Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA), on the other hand, actually introduced the Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women Act, H.R. 4154, 112th Cong. (2012), this March.  The bill tracks S. 1925 almost word for word.

Not long after publication of this article, I was contacted by Attorney General McKenna’s office with the following email:

Attorney General McKenna[’s position] on the issue . . . is a great deal more detailed than your piece gives him credit for.  I do appreciate the fact that you give him some credit for working to prevent violence against native women.  Preventing DV and sexual assault against all women has been a priority for Rob McKenna predating his time as AG and has been a personal passion of his as a long-time supporter of the Eastside Domestic Violence Coalition.

 To which I replied:

I agree that tribal civil jurisdiction over non-Indians should be explicitly recognized by Congress in all situations of DV in Indian Country.  Although tribes already have this power, [but see Martinez v. Martinez, No. 08-5503, 2008 WL 5262793 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 16, 2008)], the explicit recognition of this in the VAWA will likely support the imposition of jail time for civil contempt findings and getting civil orders recognized by other jurisdictions.  This is a very important recognition of tribal sovereignty, and I applaud Mr. McKenna for his stance on this issue.

It is apparent, however, that Mr. McKenna supports only tribal civil jurisdiction over non-Indians, and not criminal jurisdiction. . . . McKenna does not take a position on criminal jurisdiction because of “vexing jurisdictional issues.”  I would submit that those jurisdictional issues are actually quite clear.

But maybe I am misunderstanding something.  Does Mr. McKenna support the criminal jurisdiction provisions of S. 1925?  More generally, does Mr. McKenna support tribal criminal jurisdiction over those who commit violence against Native women in Indian Country?

The Attorney General’s Office responded:

I will work with AG McKenna and our tribal issues lead, Deputy Attorney General Rob Costello, to address your questions and respond.  I don’t want to misspeak or mischaracterize AG McKenna’s position on such an important issue.  I did want to make sure you were aware of the letters he wrote which I read to say, “the debate over extending tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians is one that will continue due to the complex civil rights issues involved and it may significantly delay other protections we CAN provide right now.”  I read his letter to say while Congress continues to debate over that issue—they should enact the civil protection order solution to provide some protection NOW—and greater ability to bring criminal action against non-Indians in US courts—while the debate continues.

Two weeks later I received the following email:

Upon review of the letters, I think they speak for themselves. Thank you again for recognizing Rob’s attempt to advance the issue to protect women from violence no matter where they live.

There you have it women in Washington's Indian Country, a solid non-responsive answer.

Here’s how the Tacoma News Tribune framed the VAWA issue in terms of the Inslee-McKenna Gubernatorial race: “Inslee pushed in Congress to let tribes prosecute non-Indians accused of domestic violence on reservations; McKenna prefers to leave such cases in the hands of federal prosecutors.”  And as Indian Country is well aware, if left in the hands of federal government, these crimes go unprosecuted and the assailants go free.  Indeed, a recent Report by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says that legislation affirming criminal jurisdiction over certain non-Indian violators of Indian women should be an “immediate priority” in U.S.

In short,  Attorney General McKenna does not support limited tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian domestic abusers.  It is not an "priority" for him; at least not an "immediate" one.  “Right now,” he instead supports the status quo, which has failed tribal communities and Indian women.  While he deserves credit for going further on this issue than most Republicans will – meaning at least admitting there is a violence against Indian women problem in Indian Country – McKenna is playing it far too safe for fear of offending his GOP base as he vies for the Washington Governor’s Mansion.  Congress, namely the House GOP, has no intention of genuinely debating the Senate’s VAWA reauthorization bill to passage, and he knows it.

Indeed, as local pundits  have suggested, Attorney General McKenna has played it altogether too safe on tribal issues with a view towards this gubernatorial election: “there’s a perception here that Mr. McKenna’s performance of his duties as attorney general has been influenced by the fact that he would like to have a less than adversarial relationship with the tribes come this election cycle.”

A recent study by Chuck Tanner and Leah Henry-Tanner likewise concludes that:

Rob McKenna is not . . . an ideologically driven political activist wholly dedicated to terminating Indian Nations and abrogating their treaties.  However, when legal gray areas exist (as they frequently do in federal Indian law), and Rob McKenna perceives a state interest at issue, . . . he will oppose the fundamental rights of Indian Nations and ally with anti-Indian activists to achieve his goals.

The question is now before Washington tribal voters: has Rob McKenna done enough for Indian Country?  Will he be a partner to tribal governments or is his Indian policy one of political expedience?  He had the opportunity to come out swinging against domestic violence in Indian Country – to hit an underhand softball – but he struck out looking.

Meanwhile, or “while Congress continues to debate over that issue,” Native women in Washington State remain virtually unprotected from domestic violence by non-Indians.

Ryan Dreveskracht is an Associate at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian majority-owned law firm. His practice focuses on representing businesses and tribal governments in public affairs, energy, gaming, taxation, and general economic development. He can be reached at 206.909.3842 or ryan@galandabroadman.com.

Gabe Galanda Republishes Tribal Economic Diversification Paper

Gabe Galanda published an updated version of his paper, "The Business Case for Private Investmentand Development in Indian Country," at the 12th Annual Native Nations Law Symposium that was held on the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas on September 14th. He added new topics such as several federal Indian Country tax incentives that Congress has allowed to expire, as well as the HEARTH Act. He originally published the paper at RES 2011, at the request of the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development.

[W]hile state and local governments struggle to make ends meet [amidst the Great Recession], tribal governments have largely avoided economic catastrophe. Fueled by the $26 billion Indian gaming industry, Indian Country is generally faring much better than neighboring local economies since the recession took hold in 2008. Ironically, not having property tax bases to begin with, most tribal governmental revenues have remained stable. Many tribes are avoiding complacency; they recognize that the Indian gaming industry will not sustain its exponential growth over the last decade. The inevitable legalization of Internet gaming and, in some jurisdictions, commercial land-based gaming, will eventually put a major dent in Indian Country’s bottom line. As such, tribal governments are more than ever looking to diversify their economies.

Where tribes bring a staggering array tangibles like land and location, and intangibles like sovereignty, relaxed red tape and tax exemption, their corporate business partners bring proven industry expertise and new capital to the reservation. Whether through a joint venture between a tribe and a non-Indian business, a tribal land lease to a non-tribal company, or a tax credit investment – all of which are contemplated below – there are an abundance of very advantageous reservation development deals for Corporate America to symbiotically explore with tribes at this time in our nation’s history. The time is now for tribes to leverage these advantages to create new economic and job opportunities on their reservations.

Gabriel "Gabe" Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  Gabe assists tribal governments and businesses in all matters of tribal economic development and diversification, including entity formation and related tax strategy. Gabe can be reached at 206.691.3631 or gabe@galandabroadman.com.

Ryan Dreveskracht Warns Indian Country About the STOP Act

Today, Ryan Dreveskracht spoke about the disastrous implications for Indian Country associated with the STOP Act, at the "Knowledge is Power! 2012 Tribal Tobacco Tax Training and Seminar" sponsored by HCI Distribution at WinnaVegas Casino Resort located in Sloan, Iowa. His PowerPoint slides can be downloaded here.

Ryan Dreveskracht is an Associate at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian majority-owned law firm. His practice focuses on representing businesses and tribal governments in public affairs, energy, gaming, taxation, and general economic development. He can be reached at 206.909.3842 or ryan@galandabroadman.com.

Federal Indian Country Tax Incentives Expire

Amidst partisan gridlock in the Beltway over national tax policy, Congress has allowed several tax incentives designed to attract private development and jobs to Indian Country, to expire. Others will expire unless Congress acts. Indeed, amidst much election-year debate about the American small business sector and middle class, Indian Country's private sector and hope for a robust middle class has been forgotten by Congress.

-- The accelerated depreciation program, which allows manufacturers with facilities in Indian Country to use shorter recovery periods when calculating depreciation deductions for production equipment, has been unavailable since January 1, 2012. Legislation has been introduced that would reauthorize the provision until 2014. S. 3521, 112th Cong. § 211 (2012); H.R. 6240, 112th Cong. § 201 (2012).

-- The Indian Employment Tax Credit, which provides businesses with an incentive to hire individuals who are enrolled members of an Indian tribe (or the spouse of an enrolled member) and who live on or near an Indian reservation, expired on December 31, 2011. Legislation has been introduced that would retroactively extend the program to December 31, 2013. S. 3521, 112th Cong. § 204 (2012).

-- The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, through which tax credits are available for low-income housing projects on homes that that were constructed, rehabilitated or acquired since 1986, including those in Indian Country, are currently available to until only September 30, 2011. Legislation has been introduced to extend the credits to January 1, 2014. S. 3521, 112th Cong. § 203 (2012).

-- The Work Opportunity Tax Credit, a federal tax credit incentive for private-sector businesses that hire individuals from twelve target groups who have consistently faced significant barriers to employment, including certain Indians, expired in 2011. Legislation has been introduced that would extend the WOTC to December 31, 2013. S. 3521, 112th Cong. § 209 (2012).

Indian Country must urge that these tax incentives be extended so that tribal governments can continue to attract private capital and create new jobs for tribal members and neighboring communities. Between now and November any calls to Capitol Hill will likely fall on deaf ears. But come after the election, tribal constituents should call their Delegation to urge that Indian Country's tax and job needs not be forgotten.

Gabriel "Gabe" Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  Gabe assists tribal governments and businesses in all matters of tribal economic development and diversification, including entity formation and related tax strategy. Gabe can be reached at 206.691.3631 or gabe@galandabroadman.com.