After a brief stumble last week, lawmakers Tuesday advanced two pieces of legislation that could grant the Mi’kmaq Nation a tribal representative in the State House and expand certain tax breaks for members of the Wabanaki Nations.
New language of LD 395 would not make federal Indian laws applicable to tribes in Maine, as the first version of the bill would have. Instead, the resolution would create a task force of the five tribal chiefs and four lawmakers to study the issue in advance of the next legislative session. Members of the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to advance the amended language.
A new version of LD 785 would also expand certain tax breaks for tribal members, rather than the vast expansion of tribal authority contained in the bill’s original language. It would also provide the Mi’kmaq Nation with a representative in the Legislature, bringing parity across all four Wabanaki Nations. Committee members voted along party lines, with Passamaquoddy Tribal Rep. Aaron Dana joining Democrats to advance the amended bill.
Tribal representatives cannot vote on the floor but may vote in committees and introduce legislation.
The new language of the bills represents compromises struck among tribal leaders and Gov. Janet Mills.
Several tribal chiefs spoke in support of the amendments, recognizing that the perfect ought not be the enemy of the good.
“The Passamaquoddy Tribe supports the changes here and we look forward to continuing work on the efforts to be able to get to a point where the Passamaquoddy Tribe, along with all the Wabanaki Nations, at some point, are recognized as full sovereignty in the state,” William Nicholas Sr., chief of the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Motahkomikuk (Indian Township), told the committee. “And its important that we keep that in mind at all times in making decisions and moving forward.”
Reuben M. Schafir is a Report for America corps member who writes about Indigenous communities for the Portland Press Herald.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less