Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

An 1835 treaty granted the Cherokee Nation a place in Congress; 187 years later, the House is considering it

Chuck Hoskins Jr.

Chuck Hoskin Jr., the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, asked Congress to meet the terms of the treaty.

C-SPAN

On Dec. 29, 1835, U.S. officials acting at the direction of President Andrew Jackson and representatives of the Cherokee Native agreed to a treaty that required the tribe to leave its Southeast homes and migrate west of the Mississippi River.

But one section of the treaty granted the Cherokees the right to select a delegate who would serve in the House of Representatives. Specifically, Article 7 of the Treaty of New Echota states that the Cherokee Nation is “entitled to a delegate in the House of Representatives of the United States whenever Congress shall make provision for the same.” To this day, nearly two centuries later, the United States has not held up its end of the bargain.

But on Wednesday, the House Rules Committee heard testimony regarding the legal and procedural factors relating to seating a Cherokee Nation delegate. (The Senate approved the treaty, as per procedure, but the House needs to set the terms for adding a seat.)


The committee’s ranking member, Republican Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, acknowledging the government’s shortcomings, stating: “For far too long, in our nation’s history, the federal government accumulated a sorry record of making promises to tribes and then breaking those promises as soon as it was expedient to do so.”

While Cole, a member of the Chickasaw Nation, said he was happy the Cherokee Nation is seeking fulfillment of the treaty, he expressed concerns about double-representation of constituents, the character of the House and the overall constitutionality of adding an additional seat.

Chuck Hoskin Jr., the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, noted in his opening remarks that his people were standing up for what they were promised.

“Cherokee Nation has, in fact, adhered to our obligations under these treaties. I’m here to ask the United States to do the same,” he said. “It's time for this body to honor this promise and seat our delegate in the House of Representatives. No barrier, constitutional or otherwise, prevents this.”

Kim Teehee, an attorney and Native American activist, was named delegate in 2019 but has no place to serve. Because Teehee would lack full voting privileges, like other House delegates, Hoskin claimed Teehee’s status “should not pose a significant barrier to seating.”

Mainon Schwartz, a legislative attorney at the Congressional Research Service, testified that the additional seat may pose constitutional concerns because it would be the first instance of a Native tribe getting representation, although she said the non-voting status might negate any complications.

The committee seemed receptive to the Cherokee Nation’s requests despite the questions that arose.

“As I study this issue, I believe it is the right thing to do — it’s the moral thing to do,” said Chairman Jim McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts.

Read More

Two volunteers standing in front of a table with toiletries and supplies.

Mutual aid volunteers hand out food, toiletries and other supplies outside the fence of Amphi Park in Tucson, which was closed recently over concerns about the unsheltered population that previously lived there.

Photo by Pascal Sabino/Bolts

Facing a Crackdown on Homelessness, Two Arizona Cities Offer Different Responses

In August, fewer than 250 voters cast a ballot in a South Tucson recall election targeting the mayor and two allies in the city council. The three officials, Mayor Roxnna “Roxy” Valenzuela and council members Brian Flagg and Cesar Aguirre, form a progressive coalition in the small city’s leadership. Outside government, they also all work with Casa Maria, a local soup kitchen that provides hundreds of warm meals daily and distributes clothing, toiletries and bedding to the city’s unhoused population.

It was their deeds providing for the homeless population that put a target on their back. A political rival claimed their humanitarian efforts and housing initiatives acted as a magnet for problems that the already struggling city was ill-equipped to handle.

Keep ReadingShow less
From Nixon to Trump: A Blueprint for Restoring Congressional Authority
the capitol building in washington d c is seen from across the water

From Nixon to Trump: A Blueprint for Restoring Congressional Authority

The unprecedented power grab by President Trump, in many cases, usurping the clear and Constitutional authority of the U.S. Congress, appears to leave our legislative branch helpless against executive branch encroachment. In fact, the opposite is true. Congress has ample authority to reassert its role in our democracy, and there is a precedent.

During the particularly notable episode of executive branch corruption during the Nixon years, Congress responded with a robust series of reforms. Campaign finance laws were dramatically overhauled and strengthened. Nixon’s overreach on congressionally authorized spending was corrected with the passage of the Impoundment Act. And egregious excesses by the military and intelligence community were blunted by the War Powers Act and the bipartisan investigation by Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho).

Keep ReadingShow less
In and Out: The Limits of Term Limits

Person speaking in front of an American flag

Jason_V/Getty Images

In and Out: The Limits of Term Limits

Nearly 14 years ago, after nearly 12 years of public service, my boss, Rep. Todd Platts, surprised many by announcing he was not running for reelection. He never term-limited himself, per se. Yet he had long supported legislation for 12-year term limits. Stepping aside at that point made sense—a Cincinnatus move, with Todd going back to the Pennsylvania Bar as a hometown judge.

Term limits are always a timely issue. Term limits may have died down as an issue in the halls of Congress, but I still hear it from people in my home area.

Keep ReadingShow less
“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”:
A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

Liliana Mason

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”: A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.

According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”

Keep ReadingShow less