Legislature(2025 - 2026)DAVIS 106
04/17/2025 08:00 AM House TRIBAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Tribal Justice & Tribal Court | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON TRIBAL AFFAIRS
April 17, 2025
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Maxine Dibert, Chair
Representative Ashley Carrick
Representative Andi Story
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Robyn Niayuq Burke
Representative Jubilee Underwood
Representative Elexie Moore
Representative Rebecca Schwanke
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: TRIBAL JUSTICE & TRIBAL COURT
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
RICK HASKINS-GARCIA, Director of Law Policy
Alaska Native Women's Resource Center
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint, titled "The
Evolving Legal Landscape of Alaska Tribal Justice."
ALEX CLEGHORN, Chief Operating Officer
Alaska Native Justice Center
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint, titled, "The
Evolving Legal Landscape of Alaska Tribal Justice."
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:49 AM
CHAIR MAXINE DIBERT called the House Special Committee on Tribal
Affairs meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives Carrick,
Story, and Dibert were present at the call to order.
^PRESENTATION: Tribal Justice & Tribal Court
PRESENTATION: Tribal Justice & Tribal Court
8:05:27 AM
CHAIR DIBERT announced that the only order of business would be
a presentation on tribal justice and tribal courts.
8:06:21 AM
RICK HASKINS-GARCIA, Director of Law Policy, Alaska Native
Women's Resource Center (AKNWRC), co-presented the PowerPoint,
titled "The Evolving Legal Landscape of Alaska Tribal Justice."
He introduced himself to the committee, as seen on slide 2. He
stated that AKNWRC is a tribal nonprofit organization based in
Fairbanks. He stated that since 2018 he has worked along side
tribes in Alaska to help build the tribal justice systems.
8:08:18 AM
ALEX CLEGHORN, Chief Operating Officer, Alaska Native Justice
Center (ANJC), co-presented the PowerPoint, titled "The Evolving
Legal Landscape of Alaska Tribal Justice." He introduced
himself to the committee, as seen on slide 3. He shared that he
was born and raised in Alaska, and he is a tribal citizen of the
Tangirnaq Native Village. He stated that he has been an
attorney for over twenty years, working most of that time for
tribes and tribal organizations. He stated that he is a member
of his tribal council and a member of his regional corporation
board. He stated that the work he does at ANJC is devoted to
representing and supporting tribes and tribal justice
initiatives. He noted that ANJC represents child welfare cases
and victims of violent crime cases in the state court.
8:09:45 AM
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA gave an overview of the presentation, as seen
on slide 4, which read as follows: [original punctuation
provided]:
• ALASKA'S DOCUMENTED DANGER FOR ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN
• HISTORY OF TRIBAL JUSTICE IN ALASKA
• TRIBAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS AND CHANGES IN HOW THE STATE
OF ALASKA HAS RECOGNIZED TRIBAL AUTHORITY AND
JURISDICTION
• THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT 2022 REAUTHORIZATION
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA moved from slide 6 to slide 8 and discussed
AKNWRC. He stated that AKNWRC organized in 2015, and it is
dedicated to strengthening the response of local tribal
governments by organizing community efforts. He stated that
AKNWRC advocates for the safety of women and children,
especially from domestic and sexual abuse and violence. He
pointed out that all the board members are Alaska Native women
and longtime advocates. He directed attention to AKNWRC's
mission, which is to have tribal women, communities, and
families be free from violence and to have healing from trauma
by utilizing the wisdom of tribal ancestors to create effective
community and tribal responses to the violence.
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA discussed the funding for AKNWRC, which is
through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office
of Family Violence and Prevention Services. He continued that
AKNWRC is also the designated Alaska Native Tribal Resource
Center, and it is responsible for focusing on the intervention
and prevention of family violence, domestic violence, and dating
violence. He stated that this is done through culturally
sensitive statewide information, training, and technical
assistance designed to reduce tribal disparities within Alaska
Native communities. He stated that AKNWRC relies heavily on its
tribal, state, and national partners, as seen listed on slide 8.
8:13:49 AM
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA moved to slide 9 and slide 10 and pointed out
the problem of domestic violence and homicide of Alaska Native
women. He stated that the Violence Policy Center has produced a
report for each state, and this report tracked female victims
who were killed by male offenders. For Alaska, he stated that
the center found a prolonged epidemic of deadly violence against
all women. He pointed out that the graph on the slide showed
that Alaska had the highest homicide rate in the U.S. in 2020
for female victims killed by male offenders. He added that this
was for single-victim or single-offender incidents, and this was
the seventh year in a row that Alaska held this position. He
emphasized that for the last decade Alaska has ranked first or
second in the nation for women killed by men.
8:15:57 AM
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA moved to slide 11 and stated that Alaska
Native women are killed at 10 times the rate than white women.
He pointed out the unique challenges in Alaska concerning these
high rates of violence, and this includes the state's geographic
and infrastructural challenges that would delay an emergency
response. He noted that many remote communities lack local law
enforcement presence, which also results in a delayed response.
Other issues that could cause a delayed law enforcement response
include weather issues and communication gaps. He discussed the
complexity of the jurisdictions in the state.
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA pointed out that there are also socioeconomic
factors concerning these high rates of violence. He pointed out
the historical trauma from colonization and forced assimilation
and the limited economic opportunities in rural Alaska that keep
women and children trapped. He noted that there are also
housing shortages. He reiterated that in 2020 Alaska Native
women were killed at a rate of three- and one-half times higher
than all women killed in Alaska, which is 10 times the rate for
the murder of white women. He pointed out that these statistics
represent real lives and families. He stated that AKNWRC calls
for action, awareness, and legislative prioritization. He
emphasized that preventative measures are more cost effective
than reactive measures.
8:22:39 AM
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA moved to slide 12 and reported that the
National Institute of Justice conducted a study on violence
against American Indian and Alaska Native Women, and it found
that 84.3 percent of these women have experienced violence in
their lifetime. He noted that the data for the study came from
2010. He further discussed a specific breakdown from the study,
as seen on the slide. He pointed the conclusion of the study
was overall, more than 1.5 million American Indian and Alaska
Native women have experienced violence in their lifetime. He
added that there are multiple reasons for this violence,
including colonization and federal law.
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA moved to slide 13 and explained that another
reason for these statistics is Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian
Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978). He stated that the court found that
Indian tribes did not have criminal adjudicatory jurisdiction
for non-Indian offenders in Native territory. He gave the
details of the case. He stated that this was a departure from
200 years of tribal Indian law. He explained that from 1978 to
2013 there was a high rate of violent crimes by non-Native
offenders with no accountability, which resulted in more crime
on tribal lands. He stated that in Alaska, the state has not
been able to provide consistent public safety services off the
road system, negatively affecting these communities.
8:29:41 AM
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA, in response to a question from
Representative Story, explained that in the court decision it
was found that tribes lacked jurisdiction over non-Natives. He
stated that tribes could exert authority over their own
citizens, or citizens from another tribe, but cases involving
non-Natives would go to the federal government. In response to
a follow-up question, he stated that 1994 was the first year of
the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and this allowed tribal
courts to prosecute some non-tribal citizens for certain crimes.
He explained that there is an "irrational fear" that non-tribal
citizens would not receive fair treatment or due process in a
tribal court. He pointed out that now tribal courts are
extremely precautious and work to mirror the protections found
in federal and state courts.
8:34:05 AM
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA pointed out that the history of the tribal
court systems in Alaska is unique. He moved to slide 15 and
directed attention to a quote from Rose Borkowski, a late Yup'ik
Elder. He read the quote, which explained how traditional
justice had been implemented by tribes in the past for domestic
violence, and the community centered approach they took to
restore balance. He emphasized that offenders were not punished
but taught how to interact with people properly. He noted that
Elders had played a central role as culture experts, often
serving as mediators. He stated that the entire community
participated when addressing violent offenders, which created a
sense of shared responsibility. These responses had been aimed
at healing relationships, rather than isolating offenders.
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA moved to slide 16 and explained that prior to
Russian and American contact, Alaska Natives had been governed
by family and clan relationships, not through centralized
authorities. He reiterated that wrongdoing was seen as
affecting the entire family or clan, and this created a shared
responsibility. He stated that traditional justice systems
varied across the different cultural tribes in Alaska, as each
had its own systems and traditions that reflected local and
community values; however, commonalities were present. He
emphasized that traditional tribal justice systems lifted up
women, as they had unique roles across all Alaska Native
cultures. He stated that female Elders often were seen as key
decision makers, and violence against women had been considered
an offense against the entire community. He noted that many of
the tribes were matrilineal, with rights and cultural
significance passed through the mother. In conclusion, he
stated that traditional tribal justice systems focused on
accepting responsibility, correcting wrongdoing, and restoring
balance in the community.
8:41:35 AM
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA moved to slide 17 and slide 18 and explained
the impacts of the Russian colonization of Alaska, which began
in 1784 and lasted until the U.S. purchased Alaska in 1867.
Russian colonization had disrupted the Alaska Native justice
systems that had existed for thousands of years, and this
started the existence of outside rule, which continued into the
purchase of Alaska by the U.S. He stated that Russia had not
give Alaska Natives sovereignty; rather, it imposed its own
legal practices.
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA discussed how American Indian treaties were
made, expressing the understanding that almost all of these
treaties were violated and broken. He noted that when the U.S.
purchased Alaska, it made no treaties with Alaska Natives. He
stated that the purchase treaty referred to Alaska Native people
as "uncivilized Native tribes." He emphasized that the purchase
of Alaska had been without the consent of the tribes. He noted
that most people at the time considered Alaska a "useless land,"
while Alaska Natives maintained that they had title to the
territory as the original inhabitants. He noted that the treaty
did not include the consent of the Alaska Native peoples.
8:46:59 AM
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA moved to slide 19 and discussed the influence
of the U.S. government on tribal justice systems in Alaska. He
stated that the U.S. immediately began to impose its policies on
the territory and the people. He stated that the first federal
court was established in Sitka in 1884, and this was when civil
government was being administered on the District of Alaska. He
pointed out that this period represents a loss of land for
tribes. He pointed out that, at this time, the U.S. had not
recognized Alaska Natives' title to traditional lands; rather,
the land was treated as public domain. He pointed out that this
had created an ambiguity with the legal status of the land,
which existed for over a century, until the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971. He noted that once the U.S. had
taken control of Alaska, a separate education system for Alaska
Native children was created, and this had led to the creation of
the missionary and boarding schools. He noted that the first
Bureau of Indian Affairs school was established in 1925, and
this furthered the segregation of Alaska Native peoples. He
pointed out that when the U.S. took control of Alaska, the
transformation of Native landowner concepts changed from the
traditional, collective stewardship models to individualized
property rights. He stated that this shift undermined the
tribal government systems, where land decisions had been made
collectively.
8:52:58 AM
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA moved to slide 20 and discussed post-
statehood in Alaska. He explained that in 1959 the newly formed
state government expanded its power. He stated that this was
done by providing resources to communities to have city
councils, different from the village councils, and state
magistrates were put forward to assume judicial roles. This
system of government was set up in preference to the tribal
justice systems.
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA directed attention to the quote on slide 21
by Lisa Ka'illjuus Lang, which read as follows (original
punctuation provided):
Colonization severed Haida people's ties with
ourselves, each other, our nation, the land and sea
reflected in the disrespect for and rates of domestic
and sexual violence against our women and children.
Our potlatches are our ways of upholding our societal
laws, and these were outlawed in Alaska in the early
1900s and in Canada during the late 1800s.
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA asserted that the effects of colonization on
Indigenous justice systems were detrimental, as exemplified in
the quote. He explained that the criminalization of Native
potlatches had eliminated these formal spaces where traditional
justice had operated, making the traditional protection of women
and children unenforceable.
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA moved from slide 22 to slide 24, and he
pointed out the eras of federal Indian law. He explained that
the subject is extremely dense, and he focused on the current
era of 1994 to the present, which is termed the "self-governance
era." He stated that an important part of this was the
implementation of the Tribal Self Governance Program, which was
established in 1988. He pointed out that this stemmed from the
self-governance compacts for health care. He discussed the
health care demonstration project, which allowed tribes to
consolidate multiple contracts and grants into a single funding
agreement. This allowed tribes to assume control over the
management of their programs, as opposed to federal agencies.
He stated that an amendment in 1994 created a permanent tribal
self-governance program, as opposed to a demonstration program.
He stated that the program has become very successful, as all
the federal Indian programs are carried out by the tribes
themselves, and not the federal agencies. He discussed the
various results of this, including VAWA. He stated that the
self-governance era has had many positive impacts on tribes,
including autonomy. He stated that there has been an
enhancement to a sophistication in tribal governance. He noted
that there are still jurisdictional challenges, especially in
terms of non-Native offenders. He also noted the funding
inadequacies, despite tribes having more control over resource
allocations.
9:03:47 AM
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA, in response to a question from
Representative Carrick regarding whether the Oliphant v.
Suquamish Indian Tribe decision influenced change, directed
attention to Public Law 280 (PL 280). He expressed the opinion
that after the Oliphant decision, the federal authorities' lack
of support to the communities had been irresponsible. He
explained that the victims [of crimes by non-Natives] were left
without accountability and justice.
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK opined that the Oliphant decision was
"more than irresponsible," and this is a good example of how the
self-determination era had positive gains and the right
direction.
9:08:40 AM
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA, in response to a question from Chair Dibert
concerning the changing rates of violence against women,
expressed uncertainty why the rates dropped in 2008 through
2010, and he offered to follow up to the committee. He deferred
to Mr. Cleghorn.
9:09:38 AM
MR. CLEGHORN expressed uncertainty, and he suggested that it
could be tied to the surge in the presence of Village Public
Safety Officers, as this had been a priority during that time.
9:10:15 AM
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA, in response to a question from
Representative Story, emphasized the importance of the
restorative justice practice by the tribes. As the tribal
justice system is reinvigorated, he pointed out that the Alaska
tribes are learning from the tribes in the Lower 48. He stated
that while these tribes mimic the Western government systems,
Alaska tribes are reaffirming traditional justice practices and
the restorative practice. He expressed doubt in the practice of
"locking somebody away" from the community. He opined that
recognizing the importance of culture, family, and community, as
rehabilitation, would allow these people the opportunity to
heal.
MR. CLEGHORN gave the example that in Juneau, the Tlingit and
Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska have been operating a juvenile
program to divert young people from the state system into a
healing-to-wellness court.
CHAIR DIBERT commented on her experience with potlatches in the
Interior with her tribe, and she expressed the importance of
this.
9:17:20 AM
MR. CLEGHORN stated that his goal in co-presenting the
PowerPoint is to highlight the progress of tribal jurisdiction
in Alaska. He moved from slide 30 to slide 32 and addressed the
definition of "inherent tribal sovereignty." He stated that
"inherent" means that autonomy would not be derived from another
government. He explained that federal law has acknowledged that
tribal powers are not stemming from acts of the U.S. Congress;
rather, they are inherent sovereign powers that have never been
extinguished. He stated that sovereignty predates the formation
of the U.S., as tribes have been on the land for time
immemorial, and federal law has not diminished this. He
addressed the definition of "tribal," pointing out that there
are 229 tribes with federal recognition. This means that the
federal government has acknowledged a specific group of Native
people as a tribe and a distinct political entity. These tribes
have a government-to-government relationship with the federal
government, and they are sovereign nations with the right of
self-governance.
MR. CLEGHORN defined "sovereignty" as the right to make laws and
be self-governed. He emphasized the importance of using the
term "citizen." He stated that "sovereignty" gives the right to
make laws and administer justice. In conclusion, he stated that
sovereignty means the right to govern, protect, and enhance the
health, safety, and welfare of citizens. Connecting sovereignty
to self-determination, he stated that this means the Alaska
Native peoples would do their own work. He asserted that
sovereignty and self-determination are closely related.
MR. CLEGHORN moved to slide 33 and asserted that tribal
jurisdiction is necessary to address the safety crisis and child
welfare. He pointed out that Alaska Native children are still
being removed from their homes. He argued that tribes should be
able to exercise their own jurisdiction because violence
committed with no accountability harms people and communities.
He maintained that this accountability does not need to look
like Western accountability, but it does need to exist because
it is a core part of justice. He expressed the understanding
that each tribe would structure accountability differently.
MR. CLEGHORN moved to slide 34 and addressed the timeline of
tribal jurisdiction in Alaska from 1958 to the present. He
noted that in 1958, PL 280 was extended to "Indian country"
within Alaska, which put federal law in jurisdiction in these
lands. Next on the timeline, he pointed out that in 1971 ANCSA
was created. He highlighted the 1978 Oliphant decision and
expressed the opinion that the court's "weak reasoning" in the
case had not recognized that the tribes exist with inherent
sovereignty. He stated that this rationale "didn't go much
deeper" than recognizing that the U.S. exists, and tribes are
"domestic," so tribes would not have jurisdiction. He expressed
the understanding that, in the decision, the court had
recognized it was creating a problem, and it recognized that the
U.S. Congress would be the branch of government to address these
concerns. He stated that the reparation of this did not occur
until 2013.
MR. CLEGHORN, discussing the timeline, pointed out that in the
1999 case, John v. Baker, 982 P.2D 738, 761 (ALASKA 1999),
Alaska courts had recognized the inherent sovereignty and
jurisdiction of tribes based on "membership or citizenship." In
2013, VAWA had restored Lower 48 tribal jurisdiction over non-
Native people who committed domestic violence, and in 2022
VAWA's reauthorization occurred, and this is when Alaska tribes
were included. He stated that this provides the ability for
Alaska tribes to have criminal jurisdiction over non-Native
people who commit certain violent crimes within the village.
9:28:56 AM
MR. CLEGHORN, in response to a question from Representative
Story, explained that in 2013 VAWA had created a pathway for
Lower 48 tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction on non-Native
people who committed domestic violence, but Alaska was not
included. He stated that when VAWA was reauthorized in 2022, a
chapter about Alaska was included. He stated that this
reauthorization had expanded the list of eligible crimes. In
response to a series of follow-up questions, he expressed
uncertainty on the number of non-Native people who have been
charged in tribal courts in the Lower 48. He offered to follow
up after the meeting. He stated that he would be able to
provide the number of tribes in the lower 48 that are exercising
criminal jurisdiction.
9:33:56 AM
MR. CLEGHORN moved to slide 35 and pointed out the functions of
PL 280. He stated that it allows states to exercise
jurisdiction in Indian country; however, Alaska does not have
Indian country, so the jurisdictional impacts of this in the
state are minimized. He stated that PL 280 does affect federal
public safety and justice funding; however, he pointed out that
this funding has been diminished. He stated that PL 280 did not
terminate tribes, extinguish tribal sovereignty, or take away
tribal jurisdiction. On slide 36, he explained ANCSA's effect
on tribes in the state. He stated that it had settled
Aboriginal title claims and revoked reservations, which had
impacted the territorial jurisdiction of Alaska tribes. He
stated that ANCSA did not terminate tribes, and it did not
extinguish tribal sovereignty.
MR. CLEGHORN stated that because tribes in Alaska do not have
Indian country or reservations, this has created a question
about tribal jurisdiction. He stated that the Alaska Supreme
Court in John v. Baker had addressed this question, and the
court had found that Alaska tribes do have jurisdiction, as seen
on slide 37. Moving to the next slide, he stated that in
between 1999 to 2022 there had been many court cases around
tribal jurisdiction, but with the 2022 VAWA reauthorization
tribal jurisdiction was affirmed. He stated that VAWA does two
things: it affirms Alaska tribes' jurisdiction, and it creates a
pilot project for Alaska tribes to exercise criminal
jurisdiction over non-Native people that commit certain crimes
within the village. He pointed out that it does not create
Indian country; rather, it recognizes a village as a Native
territory.
MR. CLEGHORN moved to slide 39 and stated that in VAWA 2022, the
U.S. Congress is recognizing and affirming the inherent
authority of Alaska tribes occupying the village to exercise
criminal and civil jurisdiction for all Native people in the
village.
9:39:54 AM
MR. CLEGHORN moved to slide 40, which listed the types of cases
that tribal justice systems are currently covering, including
adoptions, child protection, domestic violence, disorderly
conduct, drug and alcohol regulation, divorces, and more. He
stated that each tribe would determine the extent of its
jurisdiction, and this is often driven by community need and by
available resources.
MR. CLEGHORN, on slide 41, stated that Native villages in Alaska
are under concurrent jurisdiction between tribal, state, and
federal courts; however, tribes have exclusive jurisdiction over
internal tribal affairs. He stated that this concurrent
jurisdiction is found under PL 280. He expressed the opinion
that progress needs to be made concerning communication and
collaboration in the concurrent jurisdiction between the state
and the tribes. He noted that tribes have exclusive
jurisdiction over their internal government affairs. He
maintained that VAWA 2022 was clear that concurrent jurisdiction
would not be disrupted, as seen on slide 42.
MR. CLEGHORN, on slide 43 through slide 46, explained that some
of the details of tribal jurisdiction are difficult to
understand. He directed attention to the issue of enforcement
within the tribe and outside of the tribe. Concerning
enforcement outside of the tribe, he said that this is done
either in full faith and credit or in comity. He stated that
some federal statutes, such as VAWA and the Indian child Welfare
Act, require state courts to give full faith and credit to
tribal court orders. He added that this would also concern a
protective order issued by any state, tribe, or territory that
is violated in another jurisdiction, as this jurisdiction must
enforce the order as if it were its own. He pointed out that
this area needs more state collaboration, as there continues to
be confusion about tribal court protective orders and the
responsibility to help with enforcement.
9:44:52 AM
MR. CLEGHORN moved from slide 47 to slide 50, and he addressed
the VAWA 2022 Pilot Project. He stated that the statute asserts
that the Alaska Tribes, who are meeting standards in protecting
a defendant's rights, could exercise special tribal criminal
jurisdiction over certain crimes committed in their villages by
non-Indian perpetrators. He noted that in this situation
"defendant's rights" would have the same meaning as it does in
the Western legal system, which includes free, licensed
attorneys for poor defendants, law-trained tribal judges,
publicly available tribal criminal laws, recorded criminal
proceedings, jury trials with a representative jury pool, and
the right for any non-Indian to file a federal habeas petition.
He reiterated that VAWA 2013 was about domestic violence, but
too many crimes fell out of this federal definition. He stated
that VAWA 2020 resulted from the advocacy to expand this list,
and now there are nine listed crimes, as seen on slide 49. To
implement VAWA 2022, he stated that the Inter-Tribal Technical
Assistance Working Groups (ITWG) were created. He stated that
this group had been formed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in
2013 and has met every year. He noted that this group is open
to all tribes.
MR. CLEGHORN moved to slide 51 and stated that because Alaska is
unique, it formed its own ITWG, or "AK ITWG." He stated that it
is similar to the national ITWG, but specifically for Alaska, as
Alaska tribes are working together on public safety and justice,
in a peer-to-peer collaboration. He added that there is Alaska-
specific technical assistance. He stated that AK ITWG began
meeting in 2024, and it has had two meetings. He explained that
DOJ had chosen the Alaska Native Justice Center to lead the AK
ITWG, along with other partners, as seen listed on slide 52. He
pointed out that Alaska has two tracks for participating in AK
ITWG. He stated that Track One is open to all interested
tribes, regardless of whether they plan to apply for the Pilot
Program. He stated that this track includes peer-to-peer
information sharing, and members would receive targeted
technical assistance. He added that tribes who wish to join the
AK ITWG should submit a letter to DOJ. He stated that Track Two
tribes are those who have expressed interest in special tribal
criminal jurisdiction over non-Native people. He pointed to the
list of interested tribes on slide 54.
9:51:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK expressed appreciation to the presenter
and expressed the hope that the committee could investigate the
topic further in the future.
CHAIR DIBERT expressed appreciation that the University of
Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) is an AK ITWG partner. She mentioned the
Sophie Sergi case and expressed the importance of protecting
Alaska Native women on campuses.
MR. CLEGHORN added that the UAF's program on tribal management
and government has been working to get information out on these
issues. In response to a question concerning other possible
partners, he stated that other non-profit regional corporations
involved in similar tribal justice support have been interested.
He expressed gratitude for the opportunity to share information
on the topic, and he noted the complexity. He pointed out that
compressing the information concerning tribal justice and tribal
courts is a challenge.
MR. HASKINS-GARCIA expressed his appreciation for being able to
speak before the committee. He noted that the Chickaloon
Village would be presenting to the committee soon. He pointed
out that it is one of the participating villages in Track Two of
AK ITWG. He expressed anticipation on hearing about its work.
CHAIR DIBERT thanked the presenters, and she made closing
comments.
9:57:46 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Tribal Affairs meeting was adjourned at
9:58 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2. Alaska Tribal Justice Opinions and Memos.pdf |
HTRB 4/17/2025 8:00:00 AM |
|
| AKNWRC and ANJC 2025 House Tribal Affairs Presentation - V2.pdf |
HTRB 4/17/2025 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Final ANJC House Tribal Affairs PPT Apr 2025.pdf |
HTRB 4/17/2025 8:00:00 AM |
|
| AKNWRC 2025 House Tribal Affairs Presentation.pdf |
HTRB 4/17/2025 8:00:00 AM |