Maine’s Judiciary Committee met on Monday to Discuss a bipartisan bill on tribal sovereignty, which has resurfaced in the State Legislature after Gov. Janet Mills (D-Maine) vetoed a similar measure last summer.
[RELATED: Janet Mills Wins Again as House Fails Veto Override on Tribal Sovereignty Bill…]
“[The bill] represents a resounding commitment to the advancement of the tribes’ self-determination here in Maine,” said Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Portland), testifying on the bill. “This bill is before you today because of a renewed spirit of collaboration on the part of the state of Maine, the tribal nations and the communities that make up our great state.”
The current bill, LD 2007, is sponsored by Talbot Ross, a far left progressive, but it was co-sponsored by 107 other members of Maine’s legislature, including House Republican Leader Rep. Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor) and Judiciary Committee member Sen. Eric Brakey (R-Androscoggin).
Supporters argue that the bill would further the rights and interests of Maine’s indigenous tribal communities by granting them the same status enjoyed by Native American tribes in other states.
Currently, the tribes are subject to agreements negotiated in the 1980s that effectively make the state of Maine the “middleman” between them and the federal government.
Opponents of the tribal legislation argue that creating myriad sovereign territories throughout Maine where different rules and laws apply would become a practical and jurisdictional nightmare.
Many people appeared to speak in favor of the bill, including multiple tribal representatives, legislators, lobbyists, protestant ministers, and members of the public.
“I know that this has been a long fight, with only incremental progress being made in recent years, but we must remember that our people have inhabited these lands for thousands of years, and we are not going anywhere,” said Chief Kirk Frances of the Penobscot Nation.
“Tribes with more autonomy develop stronger governance systems, and can encourage investment and spur more economic opportunities,” Frances said.
Fewer people spoke in opposition, and none of the opponents stood against tribal sovereignty in general.
Instead, opponents took issue with particular provisions in the bill, or the way that the bill sought to implement sovereignty.
“I remain opposed to the tribe’s efforts to be exempt from the state’s environmental laws,” said Philip Aarons, a retired environmental lawyer speaking against the bill.
During his testimony, Aarons voiced his support for tribal sovereignty and the majority of the bill, but opposed the provisions that exempt tribal government from the state’s environmental laws, and argued that the bill should have been written more clearly.
Patrick Strauch, executive director of the Maine Forest Products Council, delivered a similar testimony.
His organization supports the tribes receiving the benefits granted to tribes in other states, but expressed concerns about the tribal exemption from state environmental regulations.
Even if LD 2007 passes through the legislature with a bipartisan majority, its fate will still be left up to Mills, who may veto it, as she did with last year’s tribal sovereignty bill.
The legislature may override a veto by the governor if they have a two-thirds majority.
Mills’ previous veto was not successfully overridden because 12 Republicans and one Democrat who supported the bill voted against overriding the governor’s veto.
