HB 123-STATE RECOGNITION OF TRIBES  4:47:39 PM CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of HOUSE BILL NO. 123 "An Act providing for state recognition of federally recognized tribes; and providing for an effective date." He asked Ms. Wolff to provide her testimony. 4:48:23 PM LAURA WOLFF, Assistant Attorney General, Opinions, Appeals, and Ethics Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that DOL was asked to assess whether or not the text of HB 123 in any way impacts the powers or authorities of tribes or the state. The conclusion was that the bill does not in any way change or confer new rights or authority. She offered to answer any questions about the legal memorandum regarding HB 123 that the department sent to the committee. 4:49:45 PM CHAIR SHOWER segued to the topic of St. Patrick's Day. He advised that his office had contacted the President of the Irish Senate who was now online to extend his greetings in recognition and honor of St. Patrick's Day. The President of the Irish Senate extended his greetings, his appreciation that people were celebrating St. Patrick's Day, and his hope that some Alaskans would travel to Ireland either this year for the 100th anniversary of the Irish Senate or next year in celebration of the Notre Dame Navy game. SENATOR COSTELLO stated that it is an honor to be one of the cochairs of the Friends of Ireland caucus in the Alaska legislature. She congratulated him for establishing similar caucuses in all 50 states. The Irish Senate President expressed his gratitude and noted that the Irish Parliament had two bars, both of which were busy that day. 4:52:38 PM CHAIR SHOWER returned attention to HB 123. 4:53:15 PM BETTY JO MOORE, representing self, Sitka, Alaska, stated that she is a tribal citizen testifying in opposition to HB 123. She said paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) in Section 3 regarding jurisdiction are all very confusing. She related that Congress enacted Public Law (PL) 280 in 1953 and Alaska was made a mandatory PL 280 state in 1958. That law transferred jurisdiction over all criminal matters committed by or against Indians in Indian Country from the federal government to the state. In Alaska that means everywhere other than Metlakatla Island. MS. MOORE cited the following: similar A May 29, 2019, Alaska Public Media report about Native leaders finding it difficult to qualify for federal resources because of legal confusion between federal Indian Country laws and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). similar An October 17, 2019 press release when Senator Murkowski said the Alaska Tribal Public Safety Empowerment Act recognizes the specific jurisdictional complexities that tribes in Alaska face. Ms. Moore questioned what the specific jurisdictional complexities were. similar An August 25, 2013 Anchorage Daily News (ADN) article reported that the State of Alaska intervened in a civil case from a small tribal court in the Village of [Minto]. Then Attorney General Michael Geraghty reported the state intervened on Mr. Park's side to protect his constitutional rights. MS. MOORE said the state attorney general ensures protection of all Alaskans' state constitutional rights; the U.S. attorney general ensures protection of all Alaskans' U.S. constitutional rights; and the U.S. and state attorneys general have jurisdiction over criminal matters in Alaska and protection of Alaskans' constitutional rights. MS. MOORE offered her perspective as a former tribal judge that not all tribal citizen's U.S. constitutional rights are protected within tribal government. She said there is no comity between tribal courts and State of Alaska jurisdiction and her belief is comity should be nation-to-nation before it is sanctioned for a state. MS. MOORE opined that HB 123 is not the answer to improving lives for all Alaskans. She asked whether tribal governments and tribal courts were properly funded by the federal government and how much it would cost the state to address ongoing issues surrounding Alaska Native people and Alaska jurisdiction, should HB 123 pass. She urged the committee not to pass HB 123 as written. 4:58:37 PM JULIE KITKA, President, Alaska Federation of Natives, Anchorage, Alaska, described the documents and information she had provided to the committee during or after the five previous hearings on HB 123. similar A document about Alaska's Unique Forms of Self Determination and Tribal Self Governance that was prepared in an effort to provide examples of what is different in Alaska compared to the rest of the United States. similar A summary briefing for the Senate State Affairs Committee that reiterates that the implication of state recognition of tribes in Alaska is different because Alaska's tribes already have federal recognition status. Thus, the effect of HB 123 is primarily one of respect. It will start to build trust and open the potential for cooperation and coordination on the many issues affecting all Alaskans. MS. KITKA emphasized that HB 123 does not affect the federal trust responsibility; it does not affect federal tribal recognition; it does not affect the sovereignty of federally recognized tribes; it does not impact the federal recognition process; and it will have no bearing on state taxation of Alaska Native lands. MS. KITKA stated that as she testified before, state recognition is a matter of state law and it varies both in terms of the mechanism and the scope. She noted that the memo that was sent to the committee provided examples of the variations in state recognition of tribes. She recapped that the three largest state recognized tribes in the U.S. are the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, the Miami Nation of Indiana, and the United Houma Nation of Louisiana. The memo also described what a state recognized tribe is and that it's distinct from a federally recognized tribe. MS. KITKA discussed the reason that some Lower 48 tribes sought state recognition versus the federal recognition process. The current research indicates that more than 100 applications for federal recognition are pending in the Office for Tribal Recognition within the U.S. Department of Interior. Very few applications are processed every year and only one or two have been processed in recent years. Because the federal process is so slow, tribes in Lower 48 states have opted for recognition through the state process. She highlighted that Alaska is different because all tribes in this state are already federally recognized. Now it is just a matter of the State of Alaska recognizing what is already a fact. MS. KITKA concluded her testimony saying that HB 123 is not a jurisdictional bill. Jurisdiction and recognition are not the same. She reminded the members that the issue of Indian Country was determined by the Venetie case and passing HB 123 would not overturn that settled law or any other court case. 5:03:02 PM CHAIR SHOWER asked the committee to keep the questions short in the interest of time. SENATOR REINBOLD asked: 1) if there really are 229 sovereign tribes in Alaska and 2) whether a tribal member is recognized by bloodline or if there were other ways to become a tribal member. 5:04:00 PM MS. KITKA answered that a unique aspect of Indian law is that decisions about tribal membership are considered an internal domestic matter and the sole prerogative of the tribe. The qualifications and requirements differ from tribe to tribe. Some may have blood quantum while others may be residency based. SENATOR REINBOLD expressed interest in seeing the specific requirements for the tribes, even if it was just a handful. MS. MOORE stated that ANCSA defines Native as a U.S. citizen who is 1/4 degree or more Alaska Indian including Eskimos, Aleuts, and Tsimshian Indians not enrolled in the Metlakatla Indian community. She said there is no consistent definition among the 229 tribes in Alaska. SENATOR REINBOLD asked Ms. Kitka if she agreed with the ANCSA definition. MS. KITKA answered no; that definition is part of the land claims settlement to determine who qualified as a shareholder in a Native corporation established as part of ANCSA. Tribal membership is different than ANCSA enrolled shareholders. She restated that federal Indian law stipulates that tribes may set their own membership requirements. As such, some tribes have members who are dual citizens of Alaska and Canada and some membership is based on descendancy. Determination of membership is a domestic issue for each tribe. There are no overarching rules. 5:09:17 PM SENATOR REINBOLD responded that not basing tribal membership on blood quantum "opens a much broader issue in my mind." CHAIR SHOWER asked members to contact Ms. Kitka or Ms. Moore directly if they had questions. Thereafter, the committee would hold another hearing to ensure those questions and the answers were part of the record. 5:10:44 PM CHAIR SHOWER held HB 123 for future consideration.