Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
Tourists gather at Mather Point on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, enjoying panoramic views of the iconic natural wonder

National Park Service budget cuts are reshaping America’s public lands through underfunding and neglect. Explore how declining park staffing, deferred maintenance, and political inaction threaten national parks, local economies, and public trust in government.

Getty Images, miroslav_1

They Won’t Close the Parks. They’ll Just Let Them Fail.

This summer, before dawn, the Liu family from Buffalo will load up their SUV, coffee in hand, bound for a long-planned trip out west. The Grand Canyon has been on their list for years, something to do before the kids get too old and schedules get too tight. They expect crowds. They expect long lines at the entrance. That is part of the deal. In recent years, national parks have drawn more than 325 million visits annually, near record highs.

What they do not expect are shuttered visitor centers and closed trails, not because of weather but because there are not enough staff to maintain them. What they do not see is the budget decision in Washington that made those trade-offs, quietly, indirectly, and without much debate.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less