As we – despite the cold, wet days lately – look forward to turning the page on spring and leaping into summer, the Maine Legislature is finishing up its not-so-special session. As is typical, it’s going to be rushing to wrap up its work.

Remarkably, many high-priority issues remain outstanding, starting with the supplemental budget, but also including paid family leave, abortion, gun rights and tribal rights. With the supplemental budget, the majority seems united, but with the other issues it’s a bit more complicated as internal divisions among Democrats muddy the waters. That’s why it’s worth taking a closer look at tribal rights, an issue that has long vexed Maine.

Maine’s Native American tribes don’t have the same level of sovereignty as most tribes in other states. Instead, they fall under the terms of the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, federal legislation introduced to define the rights of Maine tribes after talks between the tribes and the state broke down. Ever since then, tribal leaders have pushed to expand tribal rights without success. It’s perfectly understandable why they would do try, since – as has so often been the case in the history of relations between the United States and Native peoples – they didn’t really have any say in the initial settlement. It’s also understandable that the state of Maine would be resistant to changing that settlement, as it would undermine state sovereignty.  

Last session, the tribes attempted to push through state legislation that would have granted them the same rights as other federally recognized tribes. While that failed, this session they’ve offered a scaled-back version that would expand their sovereignty, just not in the area of gambling. Intriguingly, this bill is sponsored not only by Democratic leadership, but also by several prominent Republicans, including House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham and Sens. Eric Brakey and Rick Bennett. Yet Gov. Mills continues to oppose the expansion of sovereignty on a wide basis, preferring to negotiate on an issue-by-issue basis. 

As with many other policy areas, this isn’t an easy issue to legislate, let alone fix in one fell swoop.

It’s why Gov. Mills is right to oppose a sweeping rewrite of the state-tribal relationship, especially one introduced in the waning moments of the current legislative session. If we redefine tribal sovereignty in the state, it ought to be through painstaking negotiations that address the many complex and overlapping areas of policy affected by that relationship. These negotiations should involve not just tribal leaders and the executive branch, but also representatives of the Legislature, municipal governments, the federal government and the private sector. This would be slow and complex work, but it’s the better way to make policy – as long as the negotiations are serious in nature. 

The tribes may well be justifiably leery of entering such negotiations; similar efforts have failed in the past and resulted in what they view as punitive measures. After all, the last time they tried to negotiate with the state directly, they ended up getting bashed over the head with the Settlement Act by the federal government, essentially forcing them into the current arrangement. It would be understandable if they viewed any such negotiations as delaying tactics, aiming to give them a few additional powers without granting them the real sovereignty they desire and deserve. That’s why it’s important that other parties be involved in the negotiations than simply the executive branch of the state government, to ensure that there’s a truly broad-based and comprehensive agreement supported by all parties affected by it. 

It’s also important to note that the tribal governments, if they choose to enter into negotiations, wield two bargaining chips they haven’t always had in the past: widespread bipartisan support and the potential use of a citizen initiative.

Just as the supporters of paid family and medical leave have, it’s easy to see the tribes moving forward with a citizen initiative to expand their rights; if they choose to do so, it could well attract widespread support. That’s why they should be willing to entertain negotiations with the state yet again, and why the state would be well advised to take those negotiations seriously.

A negotiated solution that has widespread support among all stakeholders is a far better outcome for the entire state of Maine. It won’t be quick and it won’t be easy, but if they just show a little patience and trust, all parties involved here have the chance to do the right thing.

Jim Fossel, a conservative activist from Gardiner, worked for Sen. Susan Collins. He can be contacted at:
jwfossel@gmail.com
Twitter: @jimfossel