The Rights of Individual Indians:
Indians
as State Citizens and Residents, Voting,
and State Services.
by Charles Morse
American Indian Law
LavJ 6353
Professor Dan Benson
Fall 1987
American Indians maintain a special relationship with the
federal government with the Congress of the Un1ted States,
under
the power of the Constitution, having primacy power ovec Indt~n
tribes. 1
W1th the e~ercise of th1s power, Congc~ss can regul~te
commerce with the Indian tribes, provide special oenei1ts and
aerv1ces for Indians, and apply federal
decisions affecting
Laws and Judic1al
Indians.~
Howevec, along with the special relat1onsh1p the federal
government has with Indians,
role in Indian life.
the states also play an 1mportant
Every state has Amer1can Ind1an
their numbers vacy '.Jidely from state to state.
J
citi~ens
and
In many states no
distinction is made between Indians and other citizen.:;; other
states have special programs set up for Indians; and 1n some
states the federal government is heavily 1nvolved directly with
Indian citi~ens.4
Most state acts and constitut1ons, recogn1ze federal
authority over Indians and contain a discla1mer over Ind1ans and
their lands,
stating:
11
Said· Indian lands shall remain under the
absolute JUrisdiction and control or the Congress oi the Un1ted
States ... s
In other words, except as Congress has transterred its
authority to the states,
the states have no JUrlsdiction over
Indian reservations and Indians living on the reservat1on.
Indians living off the reservation are subJect to state laws.
currently,
noted author,
there 1s a push,
labeled .. ne'-v federali.::>m .. ny one
to move as much government and related
administrative activities as possible from the federal to state
(1()114
and local levels.o
In fact,
many of Congress' powers have oeen
transf=rred to the states ·~ither oy general statutes or by
statutes that apply to particular ~reas or tribes.?
Tne education
of Indian childr2n provides an excellent example of the changing
responsibilities of local, state, ~nd federal 3overnments for
services to Indian citizens.
Bureau of Indian Affairs is
Although the largest program of the
Ind1~n
education,
6~
percent or the
Indian children in 1972 who were members of federally recognized
tribes attended state public schools.d
However, many states
contend that Indian responsibility is exclusively a federal
problem.
These states are unwilling to accept the added t1nanc1al
burden of providing service and benefits to Indians cons1der1ng
the fact that Indians who live on federal reservations are exempt
from state real property taxes.Y
Because states cannot obtain
financing of services to Indians through taxation,
many look to the
federal government for total financing or supplementation of
benefits and services with federal funds.
In
19~4
states came face to face with the proolem of applying
state funds for the support of Indians.
In this year Congress
declared all native-born Indians to be citizens ot the United
States.
Th1s meant that all Indians also became citizens of the
states in which they resided and entitled to all the services and
protections as other citizens.1U
Prior to 1924 states were (for
the most part) anle to ignore the Indians,
had dealt with the Indians as sovereign,
(j(l115
for the United States
though dependent,
j
nat ions.
Th is paper w1· ll d ea l Wlt
· h the
rala~ionships
bet~een
Indians
and states and focus on the proble~s bo:h Indians and states face
in regards to Indians as state citizens, voting rights of Indians,
and services and benefits states provide for their Indian
citizens.
As previously stated, 1n 19~~ citi~enship was conterrad upon
all non-citizen Indians born in the Unitad States, oy act of
Congress. 11
citizens,
This law accounted Ior some l25,0UO Indians becom1ng
but tribal Indians did not lose their
~pecial
stand1ng as
.. wards of the United States .. by acyuiring citlL.enship.l.~
Indians could be both
11
Hence,
Wards .. oi the rederal government and
citizens of a particular state.
Critics of the
~ederal
government's administration of Indian a£rairs were quick to po1nt
out the evils inherent in the .. wardship .. system but at the same
time knew the alternative of absolute freedom was less
promising. l3
11
Wardship
11
Legislators were thus hesitant to aosolve the
system because they did not trust the ability or tne
American states to handle Indian relations JUdiciously.l 4
One
Senator, as early as ldb7, advocated control of Ind1ans by the
states and territories.
1
~
Howevec, state and local officials
displayed little intention of treating the Indians JUStly.
There
was little cooperation from frontier of£1cials and federal
administrators constantly found themselves in the position or
having to defend Indian tribes fcom local attac~s.lb
(J(l116
There were a
tew states that did promise to relieve t~e government of
nurdensome duties without exposing Indians to unnecessary dangers,
and this prompted a proposed change of administration.l7
For
example, 1n ld7) the Commissioner or the Bureau oi Indian Affairs
recommended that Indians should b~ placed under 3tate control at
the first possible moment and the Board of Indian Commissioners
specifically advised surrendering jurisdiction over New YorK
Indians.ld
There was no action taKen with these suggestions, out
a measure which would authorize negotiations with
Michigan,
governor~
oi
Nev.J York, and North Carolina for transterring
guardianship was presented to the House in ld77.l9
However,
most
officials feared that the federal governoent would lose all power
over Indians once a state assumed responsibility for Indtans.
Therefore, these officials opposed state control and fought 1n
several cases to uphold their own authority.
The necessity for
protecting the trtbes from discriminatory and unfair practices or
states d1ctated their wardshlp status and JUstified not turning
r~sponsibility of Indians over to the states.~U
In the
l9~0's
came an awareness from the states that they had
not done enough to help Indian citizens.2 1
They recognized that
serious segregation and discrimination problems existed that made
life diff1cult for Indian state cttizens.
The states agreed to
work more closely together on mutual Indian problems including
]oint requests for financial assistance from the federal
government to help meet Indtan progr3m needs.2~
(}()117
5
In 1950, Governor Luther Youndahl of Minnesota organized a
fifteen state conference focusing on Indian
lead~rs
problems.~J
I nd
1 ~n
and officials of the Bureau of Indian Affairs as wall as
the governors of the fifteen states were invited.
Gov~rnor
Youngdahl stressed two main themes [or this Governor3' Conference:
(1)
the desire for the states to receive more financial support
ior care of the Indians and (l)
th9 necessity for tha development
at a long range program to improve the Indians and put them on a
sound social and economic basis tnrough cooperation between
Indians,
local communities where they live, and the state and
federal governments.24
Governor Youngdahl emphasi~ed that un1ted
action by several states would be more effective than one state
presenting programs to Congress.
Another result from the
Governors' conference was the formation of the
Governor~·
Interstate Indian Council where each governor o£ participating
states would appoint two representatives, with one representative
being an Indian selected from Indians of the state.~j
In this way
more Indian feedback would go into policy and administrative
decisions affecting the states.
The Govenor's Conference in
19~0
sparKed nation-wide interest
in Indian problems and the states they resided in. 2 b
Several other
conferences were held in different cities that year, and the main
idea emanating from the meetings was that the states had been
derelict in their duties and should worK closely with the federal
government in determining future policies. 27
It was also agreed
that Indian participation in the formulation or programs was a
(J0118
necessity, that s2gregation should o~ eliminated, and equal
opportunitias should exist for Indian ~hildren in ouolic
schools.~8
The governors 1n their several conferences seemed to accept
the changing responsibilities toward ti1eic India:1 cttiz.en::;, but
the idea of federal financial assistance was sttll stronglj
supported.~~
Through 1~54 the governors ~ited many ar2d~ of
concern foe Indian citizens, among them
wee,;;;~
improved housing
conditions; oetter welfare services; better law and order in
Indian territories; better education,
including more federal funds
to states and wider use or public schools; and better health
programs.30
From 19S5 and on, several additional items were
considered, such as:
industrial development; economic
development; and the roles of the Federal Housing Admini3tration
(FHA), and Small Business Associat1ons (SBA) were d1scussect.31
With the push for terminat1on of federal services for Indians
1n
19~5,
the Governor's council went on record as opposed to such
actions.32
which
The Council voiced their opposition to Public Law L~U,
authori~es
states to assume law and order JUrisdictlon over
Indian countcy, and to House Concurrent Resolution lUd (H. C. R.
!0~),
which expressed the intent of Congress to terminate special
federal services to Indian tribes as soon as they were ready,
without the consent of concerned Indians.33
In l9b9 the Council
stated that the consent of both Indians and states should be
obtained before federal termination taKes place.3~
(j()119
7
I
In 1957 another important develop~~nt oc2ured in t[12
federal-state relationship over Indians.
Four
st~tes,
Wisconsin,
Minnesota, South Dakota, and North DaKota sought state operation
oi Indian programs with federal funds.35
reimburse~ent
The states sought
by the federal government toe contracts the stata
maintained for educational and social s2rv1ces to Ind1ans.
The
Interior Department interpreted tne sta::2s 1ctenc as pu::inll•Y
exclusive responsibility for Indians upon the federal government.
The Interior Department in denying the enactment oi the states'
oills remarked:
With respect to the division of financial
responsibility between the Federal and
State Governments for services furnished oy
a state to Indians who live on tax exempt
land, we believe the state has the basic
constitutional responsioility and that the
effect of the tax exemption on the revenue
of the state or local agency provid1ng
the service should be the primary factor
in determininj the amount of the Federal
contri·oution. o
Thus, the federal government went clearly on record stating that
the state has the primary responsibility to ensure that Indian
citizens receive the same serv1ces from the same governmental
units as other citizens of the state.
The
i~bU's
were marked by social leg1slation enacted during
the Kennedy and Johnson years that resulted in expanded services
to Indians.J7
Stronger Indian involvement in Indian atfa1rs was
pushed ior and the Indians were reassured by the Secretary oi the
Interior that term1nation would not take place until trioes
(1()120
understood and concurred ~vith severing its rel~tions: 1 ip w1th t,1e
federal government.Jo
Many states that had orig1nally endors2d
termination reversed their st~nce and now voiced their op1nion tor
non-termination.
governmental responsibilities f0r
of the l~Su's.J~
:::1ssum~d
Foe example, California hJ.d
However,
...,
.-
...
·-._
.,
.......
.
'. .
_&..~
"lost:
;. ...
~.i
,-__·... ...;;· ·--·~nd
in the l9bO's the state, supported oy
many Indian residents, pushed hard foe federally supplied
and funds.
s~cvices
At the same time there was progress made from the
negative philosophies typified oy the termination period, as
Indian l8aders weca shown thac their own decisions, act1ons, and
determinations would be the key that would unlock the door to
future Indian development.~O
Today the states are able to interface with the federal
government and provide certain governmental functions for Indian
communities that would oe difficult to provide through the federal
government.4l
For example,
foster home care or specialiLed
institutional care for dependent or hand1capped children is more
accessible by state services.
States, as a basic structure
O£
our
federal system, provide citizens with certain functional
responsioilities, such as education, police, and court systems.42
On the other hand,
the federal level concentrates on deiense and
national programs such as those for commerce, agriculture,
labor,
the federal legal and JUdicial system, educat1on, and welfare.4J
Where responsibilities, such as education, are duplicated the
operation and management of the function is generally with the
9
state and local jurisdictions with grant-in-aid assistance [com
the federal level. 44
We have discussed the basic tenets of the iederal and state
relationship in regards to Indians, but ~e have yet to focus on
ilie states' philosphy concerning their Ind1an citi~ens.
Views
regarding Indians and their relationship to state anJ federal
governments have shifted as circumstances across the nat1on have
changed.
A good example of the changing perceptions at Indiana oy
states 1s evidenced by the Indi~ns'
struggle to attain vot1ng
rights.
Voting 1s perhaps the most basic right in a democratic
society.
The consitution does not grant anyone the right to vote
c1t1~en
but the Fifteenth Amendment simply states that no
shall oe
denied the right to vote because or race, color, or prev1ous
condition of servitude.45
The Constitution also charges the
states with the primary responsibility for determining tne
standards of voting eligioility.
Art1cle l, section 4, provides
that the "times, places, and manner" or holding elections shall be
prescribed by the states.
Because the privilege of voting is
Within the JUrisdiction of the state, the state may exercise this
Power upon such terms as it deems proper. 4 b
State courts have
long recognized that state legislatures have the powec to
Prescribe reasonable conditions as to vot1ng. 47
Other citizens cannot satisfy these standards,
Permitted to exercise their iranchise.
If Ind1an or
they will not be
Or course,
the standards
the states set forth,
discriminatory.
must be reasonable and not aro 1 trary or
There ac2 three federal constitutional
rastrictions on the states right to prescrioe voting
qua l i f i c a t ions . 4 tj
T'tl o o f the r e s t r i c t 1 on s , the t i t t e e n t ~ 1
amend:nent and the equal protection clause ot the
a~endment
f0urt~~~nth
are applicable to the Indian problem.
We have already mentioned the fifteenth amendment which
basically protects a citizen or the United States from denial of
the right to vote because of race or color.
The maJority of cases
that have ar1sen under the fifteenth amendment have concerned
denial of voting rights to the negro, however there have oeen
cases which have held state constitutional provisions which
prohibited .. Indians not taxed .. from voting to be discrimination
on
the ground of race and, therefore 1n violation oi the fifteenth
amendment.49
Ariz. 337,
A good example is the case of Harr1son v. Lavean, b7
19b P.~d 456
(194cl), which overruled Porter v. Hall,
l\r1z. 30ti, 271 P. 411 ( 1928).
34
The Porter case had stood on the
premise that since Indians were .. persons under guardianship ..
within the Arizona constitution they could be denied the right to
Vote.
However, the Arizona Supreme Court in Harrison held that
the term
11
person under guardianship .. was not intended to act as a
bar for Indians to exercise their rights of franchise. ~U
Ultimate test 1n regards to the fifteenth amendment
~eems
The
to be;
Has the right to vote been denied either directly or indirectly
due to race?5l
If so, the fifteenth amendment will automa:1cally
(){)1 ~
render the statute inoperative.
The second restriction on state limitations of voting r1gc1c.5
stems from the "e4ual protection" clause ot the fourteenth
amendment.
A statute that provides for arbitracy or unreaaonable
distinctions will be held unconstitutional.
If there is some
reasonaole basis for differentiating between classes or suoJect
matter included or excluded by the statute than a classification
may not be deemed unreasonable or acbitrary.
However,
in applying
this rule to the question of voting,rights, the Supreme Court has
held the right to franchise applies equally to all persons
similarily situated.5~
Several noted authors have examined the role of states tn
their attempts to deny Indians their voting rights.
Monroe Price
suggests five basic arguments that states have used to prevent
Indians from registering and voting.
They are:
severance of
tribal relations; lacK of state power over Indian conduct; fear or
political control shifting to Indian maJorities; guardianship over
Indians; and residency.53
Severance of tribal relationships was a mandatory requirement
for Indians prior to 1924 in order that they could vote.54
States
were primarily concerned with Indians assuming a .. civilized .. way
of life before they be given the right to vote.
Lack of state power over Indian conduct is an outgrowth of
the idea that those who do not pay taxes should not be permitted
to vote.55
The states believe that if they have no taxation powec
(Jf)1 ~~4
12
0 ver
Indian reservations,
then tribal members should not be
able to participate in the selection of public state orricials.
The Minnesota case of Opsahl v. Johnson, lJcl Minn. 4L,
988 (1~17) personified this philosphy.
lb3 N.W.
The court in the casa
reasoned that tribal Indians contribute nothing to the 3tate;
their property is not subject to taxation or to the process of
courts.Sb
The Indian also bears none of the burdens of
civilization and perform none of the duties of citi~ens.~7
such as Opsahl reasoned that until Indi:1ns adopt the
11
Cases
haoits and
customs oi civilization .. they should not be allowed the benefits
of .. civilized .. white p8ople.
There is a growing fear 1n predominant white communities that
have sizable minority populations that political power and
control will shift to minorities.~8
Usually this type of
argument is kept out of formal policy statements and opinions
because it striKes at the heart of our democratic philosphy.~9
However,
there are cases where this type of philosphy is boldly
admitted, such as the case of Allen v. Merrell,
P.~d
b
Utah
~d
3~,
~u~
49U (195b).
In Allen, Preston Allen, an American Indian and resident ot
the Uintah Indian Reservation 1n Utah,
instituted suit,
for
himself and others similarly situated, seeking a writ to compel
the defendant, Porter Merrell, the county clerK,
and permit him to vote.
to issue a ballot
Merrell refused to give the plaintiff a
ballot based on a Utah statute, which provided:
(1(}1 ~5
lJ
Any pers~n living upon any Indi~n or military
rcservat1on shall not be deemed a resident or
Utah within the meaning oc thi3 chapter, unless
such person had acquired a residence in some
county in Utah prior to ta~ing up his residence
upon such Indian or military reservation.bU
Plaintiff contended that the detinition of "resident" 1n
practical application, denied voting rights only to Indi~ns living
on reservations and thus was in contradiction of the fifteenth
amendment and also offended the equal protection clause of the
fourteenth amendment.bl
The Supreme Court of Utah answered that the
Utah statute provided a reasonable classification and was
n~t
invalid as a denial of the right to vote on account of race nor so
unreasonable that it 1s 1n clear conflict with nondiscrimination
and equal protection standards. b2
The court first took the "clean
hands" approach and eloquently stated that they were in accord
with the objective of having Indians endowed
~vith
all of the
privileges of citizenship and fully participating in the attendant
privileges and responsibilities.b~
However,
their concern for
Indian citizenship promptly waivered when the court proceeded to
JUstify why Indians should not be accorded suffrage rights.
The
court first stated that Ind1ans living on reservations are
extemely limited in their contact with state government dnd this
causes them to have less interest or concern than other
citizens.64
newspapers,
Indians also have practically no access to
telephones,
radio or
tel~vision;
a high percentage of
them are illiterate; and they do not speak English in the1r
dealings with others and even 1n their tribal courts,
{J01 ~6
use only
14
their native langugage.bS
The court further stated .. it ia pat2nt
that they [Indians] do not hav9 muc:1 concern with servicea anj
regulations pertaining to sanitation, business,
facilities,
licensing, school
law enforcment and other tunctions carried on ny ~he
county and state.
This is especially so because they are not
obliged to pay most of the taxes which support governmental
functions.
ubb
All of the above reasons were delineated by the
court as to r8asons why the statute was reasonable.
Ho~1ever,
1n
the next pacagcaph of the opinion the court stated .,..,hat .nany
people feel is the true reason foe upholding the statute:
It is thus plain to see that in a countcy
where the Indians population would amount to
a substantial proportion of the citizenry, or
may even outnumbec the othec inhabitants,
allowing them to vote might place substantial
control of the county govecnment and the
expenditures of its funds in a gcoup of
citizens who, as a class, had an extcemely
limited interest in its functions and vecy
little responsibility in pcoviding the
financial support thereof. 0 7
These statements expressing fear that Indians would ga1n
control over the affairs of state and local government, havegained
criticism fcom several sources.
One author noted that even if 1t
ls true that Indians outnumber othec citizens in the counties
Whece reservations are located, and that a percentage of them are
illitecate; the same may be said about negroes in some areas and
even certain undesirable classes of white voters.6H
The Allen
case has also been critcized on the basis that reservation Indians
do pay taxes on personal pcoperty and
mineral pcoduction from
lS
leased reservation land and all Indi:1ns are also subJect to
military service. 0 ~
The residence requirement 1n the Allen case has been compared
to the unconsitutional "grandfather clause" amendment of the
OKlahoma consitution, which \vas designed to keep negroes rrom
voting. 70
In the "grandfather clause" amendment one ~vho did or
could have voted before ,186b could vote \vi thout
required literacy test.
ta~i
ng the
This requirement is similiar to the Utah
requirement which stated that one who ha3 qualified to vote
else•.vhere still qualifies to vote t:1ough living on the
reservation. 7l
The Allen case was appealed to the Supreme Court, howevec the
Utah legislature feeling pressure from various sources repealed
the residence statute before the case could be heard betore the
Supreme Court,
mooting the appeal.
Hence, Utah became the last
state to allow Indians the right to vote. 7L.
Prince v. Board ot Education, db N.M.
(197)),
548,
~4J
P.2d 117b
is another case that may fit under the heading of "lacK of
state power over Indian conduct."
In Prince, plaintiffs who wece
non-Indian residents of a school district, orought an action
against the school district seeking to set aside a school board
election and the six million dollar bond issue which had been
approved.
Plainttffs also sought a JUdgment that the District
Could not legally construct or tmprove buildings on Indian
r~servat
ion land.
Plaintiffs argued that Indian citi~ens who ltve
(}f)1 ?8
10
00
nontaxable reservation land should not have been allowed to
~te in the bond election since they do not shace the burden of
repayment of the indebtedness created by the issuance of the
bonds. 73
In short they argued that thee-= should be "no
representation without taxation". 74
The court detecnined that
there was no compelling interest to exclude Indian citi.t.ens from
voting.
Provisions in the statute ~-Jhich .cestcicted the rtght to
vote in school district bond elections to p.coperty owners or those
~o
had paid property tax in the school d1st.cict toe the p.cecedtng
year violated the equal protection claus-= of the United States
.Constitution.75
The court viewed several Supreme Court cases and
came up with the view that "statutes granting the franchise to
residents on a selective basis always pose the dange.c of denying
some citizen any effective voice in governmental affairs '.-Jhicn
could sustantially affect their lives. u7b
The court also found that a maJority of tax revenue did not
emit from residents of the school district but stemmed from
corporate property that is taxed and located on the reservation. 77
So in essence plaintiffs argument that they would have to "foot
the bill" for improvements to Indian schools was erroneous.
In
regards to plaintiff's argument that the federal government not
the state has the res pons ibi li ty for mai ntai ni ng reservation
Schools 1
the court stated 1
"the fact that some of the schools to
be constructed from proceeds 'of the bond issue will be located on
reservation lands leased from the NavaJo tribe will not prevent the
Ofl1 ?9
17
state from exercising exclusive control over such schools. u7'd
Tne
court concluded by saying ~~we do not decide whether the federal
government or the state has the primary responsibility to provide
education for the NavaJo children.
It is onlt necessary to
acknowledge that under our state constitution we do Daintain some
c~sponsibility,
without deciding if that responsibility is
exclusive. 79
11
A fourth reason why states have tried to prevent
Indi~ns
ex3rcising their voting rights stems from the idea or
Indi~ns
O'=ing
~e
~~~.vards
11
and the federal
governn~nt
being the
11
tram
guardian".
JUStification for this stance is that people under legal
guardianship are usually of tender years or mentally handicapped
to the extent they need help in managing their arfairs.8U
The
Harrison case, previously mentioned, distinguished between
ditierent types of guardianship that apply to Ind1ans and to
others.
A JUdicially estaolished guardianship may serve as a
basis to deny a person the right to vote, but this condition is
different from federal guardianship which is designed to protect
the political and social well-being or American Ind1ans.dl
Residency is the fifth reason why states reel compelled to
deny Indians suifrage rights.
This idea can readily be seen 1n
the Allen v. Merrell case, previously discussed, where residence
served as a prohibition to voting.
Although the preceding five reasons set forth are the basis
states have used for denying franchise to Indians, political
lti
establishments are constantly devising new ~Jays to maint~in white
superiority and rule areas of heavy Indian population.o2
e~ample,
For
1n South Dakota, an attempt was made to keep Ind1~ns
disfranchised by attaching three .. unorganized,. counti.es lying
entirely within the Indian reservation to adJacent counties.H3
Indians, who were the largest number of people living wich1n c.~--..::
unocganized counties, had no vote in the adJacent counties, wh1ch
were controlled by the white power structure.
HoHever, this
creative disfranchising scheme was s~cuc~ dow~ by a rederal court
when it held that Indians do have a suostantial interest
1n
the
affairs of the adjacent counties and must be permitted to vote in
elections. 8 4
Another problem facing Indian voting involves reappoctionment
and the electoral requirement of one person one vote.ti~
Reapportionment while not a denial of one•s right to vote, deals
with the d1lution of one•s vote.
If one voting district has three
times the number of people on it than another district, then the
voting power of people in the latter district is only one-third ot
that enJoyed by the people in the former district.
This disparity
is violative of the democratic notion of one person, one vote, and
denies people with a diluted vote equal protection ot the laws.bo
The Indian Civil Rights Act of l9cid contains an equal protection
of law clause and thus trioal elections have to be based on the
one man, one vote standard.b7
The maJor obstacles that previously faced Indians 1n their
19
attempts to vote have been largely over ::ome.
The fltteenth
amendment and the fourteenth amend~2nt ar~ both principles lacgely
respected and followed by the federal government and states.
congress has also contributed to the axpansion of voting rights
for minorities by passing the l9bS Voting Rights Act.dd
This law
provides for a "preclearance require:12nt .. which requires that
states filing under the 19bS Act must suomit any changes in their
voting laws to the Deptartment of Justice for pr1or approval
berore the proposed law can be put into
11
ei:rect.d~
T~1is
pCeclearance requirement .. has been e;(tre,llely erfec::.lve ln
. dissuading states from passing laws designed to prevent
minorities, including Indians,
rights. 9U
from exercising their voting
Even so, it is not uncommon for Indians to be
reluctant in taKing part in the white man's elections.
The states perform a sizable portion of various service
functions, such as education and law and order for stdte Indian
residents.
However, the quest1on still ar1ses if state and local
governments can be dynamic parts of the federal system regarding
Indians.
.. The t u t u r e r o 1 e o f the s tate s
~" i
t h regard to the i r
Indian citizens will be determined by the following consideration:
Indian attitudes and goals, changing national policies, the nature
of federal obligations to Indians, the initiatives taKen and the
Vitality of the states.
n~l
The federal government has embarked on a program ot providing
services for its Indian "wards."
However, most of tr1e specially
tJ{)1 :l2
designed Indian social 3ervice programs ace considered "general
1ssistance" programs.
9
~
This means that one quali Eies tor uenerits
only if there is no other public assistance available.
example,
For
in determining the extent or welfare ben2f1ts an Indi~n
may be eligible for,
welfare workecs are re4u1re~ co us~ the
state's budgetary plan in determining eligibility of federal
funds. 93
Most of the federal services the Indians rece1ve are
also provided to other citizens of state and local governments.
Many feel if local and state services were better and more
responsive than federal services,
for state services.94
Indians would most li~ely opt
One author, Rooert Merriam, stated:
"The basic premise o:f the American federal
system is that a strong national government
should unify and coordinate the national
purposes and endeavors, supplemented by
vigorous, autonomous state and local units
exercising primary governmen~al functions in
their respective spheres." 95
States have begun to take increased initiative 1n Indian
affairs and many states have adopted forward looking policy
positions with regard to their Indian citizens and are seeKing to
work with them and the federal government in the resolution of
proolems.96
States have changed their policies toward Indians and
now recognize that Indian groups have the right to retain their
identity.
Indians can help in the revitalization of state
governments by working with states to insure they ace more
responsive to Indian needs,
through development of adequate
Policies and programs and JOint efforts to improve funding to maKe
fJ(J 1a:
such policies and programs a reality.97
I~dian
leadershi0 can
!:
work with states to obtain ne2essacy f1nancial help from the
federal government and also strive to develop healthier reservation
economL~s ~-1hich not only \Jill help individual Indians and trioal
income but also improve 3t~te reven~e prospects as welt.9d
Many
states and local sub-divisions are receptive to this type of
Indian initiative.
In the past,
Indian access to state social programs has met
political resistance in most states.
state revenue.
However,
One of the main problems 1s
it is not the only problem; political
bickering, poorly staffed legislative committees,
incompetent
officials, overlapping JUrisdictions, and accepted discriminatory
practices against minority groups are still prevalent 1n many
state and local governments.~9
It 1s well recognized that
effective and fair state and local government 1s a must for Indian
However, many Indians are eery of trusting state
acceptance.
governments because the memory of recent discriminatory practices
are emblazoned in their attitudes.lOO
Much discrimination stems from the age old argument that
Indians who do not pay taxes should not be eligible tor social
services.
Welfare assistance is a good example,
for the bulK
0(
Indian public assistance comes from state programs, which ar~
supplemented by the BIA in the form of general assistance
payments.lOl
The BIA bears an important share of puolic reliet
for several reasons.
Some states refuse to provide aid to
{)f)1 ;14
dependent children if there i3 an able-bodi~d ~an in the
household; and since many reservation famil1es ace headed by an
unemployed male the families ara ineligible for beneflt3.1U:L
:-1a;1y
states with large Indian populations are reluctant to assist
Indians because Indian trust property is exempt fro1~ state ta:<2S
(the age old argument) and because the feeling persists that the
federal government will provide aid
1t
the stat2s do not.lOJ
In
many instances Indians often do not qual1fy under state
eligibility requirements, because state established need standards
are often far below actual minimal living costs.lU~
Despite the uuwillingness of a few states to supply puolic
assistance to Indians, state programs furnish a preponderance of
welfare assistance.
From the years
l9bj-b~
public assistance
increased 34%, with nearly 64,UUO reservation Indians receiving
state assistance, compared to only 21,UUU who rece1ved federal
assistance.105
By 197~, nearly 1U% of the total Indian cash
income came from various forms of state and federal public
assistance.1U6
There are two reasons why the number of Indians
applying for assistance has increased
r~markedly
in recent years.
First, of all, the number of Indians applying for assistance has
steadily increased and secondly a number of states with sizeaole
Indian populations have become more receptive to Indian needs.lU7
In 1954, a California court addressed the issue of whether
Indians who do not pay taxes should receive state serv1ces.
Acosta v. San Diego County,
l~b
Cal. App.
2d 455,
:L7~
P.~d
In
9L
(1954) a group of needy Indians living on the Pala Indian
Reservation applied ror emergency relief from San Diego County.
The state denied benetits on the grounds that Indians did not pay
taxes and thus should not expect to partake in the benefits ot
state serv1ces.
The California court disagreed with this
assertion and held that Indians living on reservations as citizens
and residents or the state are endowed dith rights, privileges,
a~
immunities equal to those enjoyed oy all other citizens and
residents of the state.1Uti
The court JUstified its decision by demonstrating that
Indians in many ways possessed full social and political rights.
The Indians were not simply wards of the government but were
eligible to serve as JUrors,
in their own capacity.l09
~o
subJect to the drart, and could sue
The defendant had asserted that Indians
resided on federal reservations were not residents within the
meaning of the state's welfare statute.
assertion by noting the lives of
Indi~n
The court answered this
and non-Indian state
residents were interwoven in several ~ays.llU
Indian lands and
people are counted in compiling census figures necessary to
determine congressional representaion and also to allocate federal
funds.lll
The court also noted that ~any non-Indians in the state
live on tax-exempt property belonging to the federal government or
religious institutions,
services.il2
yet they had never oeen withheld puolic
All of the above evidence led to the conclus1on that
Indians living on res.:=rvations in California \vere bona fide
0f}1:l6
citizens and residents of the state.
probl~m
One author, analyzing the Acosta case, stated the
lies with the federal government because the federal allotment ot
funds for aid to Indians has
federal government has now
al~ays
expr~ssed
b3en inadequate.
11
Since the
its intention to terminate
the status of Indians as wards of the United States,
the state and
local governmetns will have the permanent problem of providing aid
and relief to indigent Indians." 1 13
The federal government has the
task of evenly distributing, throughout the country, the financial
burden of supplying aid and relief to Indians, and the proulem is
strictly federal 1n r.ature.l14
Indians are elgible for all state, local and federal health
programs and many receive health services through the Indian
Health Services (IHS).ll~
The Indian Health Services 1s an arm ot
the Public Health Service (PHS) which received responsioility for
Indian health care from the Bureau oi Ind1an Affairs in
1~~~.
However, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was working on the transfer
of health functions to states even before the relocation of BIA's
health activity to the IHs.l16
19~u·s
A good e~ample occurred during tne
when Congress authorized a jOint county Indian hospital 1n
Alouquerque to serve the surrounding county. 117
The hospital,
built under a federal-county contract, provided an increase in
beds available to Indians as well as a greater variety of medical
services.l18
As early as 1929, Congress had extended state law to Indian
reservations covering health inspections and the enforcement or
"quarantine and sanitation regulations" undec rul~s anj
Howev~c,
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Intarior.ll9
most of the sanitation worK and discovery is still peciormed oy the
Indian Health Service since state health oifices are poorly funded
and poorly staEfed.l~U
The Indian Health Service contracts with state anJ pr1vace
organizations and individuals for Indian health services.
The
Johnson O'Malley Act provides that the Secretary of Int~r1or 1s
authorized to enter into a contract \vith a state tor ti1e :ned1cal
attention of Indians within the state.l~~
Still the maJor portion
of medical and health services for Indians are provided oy the
federal government.l~2
Wnite v. Califano, 437 F.Supp.
F.~d
543 (D.S.D.
1~77),
aff'd Jdl
697 (8th Cir. 1979), is a prime example of how the federal
government is still held responsible for providing healtn services
to Indians.
The case involved an indigent Indian, Florence Red
Dog, of the Oglala Sioux tribe who was determined to be mentally
ill.
Attempts were made to involuntarily commit her to a state
hospital of South DaKota, however the county board for mental
illness reJected a petition for her commitment based on the fact
that the state had no JUrisdiction over Indians.
The guardian ad
litem for Florence Red Dog asserted the denial oi her cl1ent to
the state hospital was violative of her e4ual protection rights.
The district court denied plaintiff's equal protection argument
(Jf)1 :18
26
and stated that "an equal protection analysis cannot be reached
this case because federal law requires that Florence Red Dog be
treated differently than other South Dakota citizens precisely
because she is an Indian person residing 1n Indian country. "123
since state officials did not act beyond their legally defined
powers there could be no equal protection argument.
resolving this question,
After
the court then declared the state could
oot extend its powers into Indian country and initiate or carry
out procedures for the involuntary commitment of
Indians who reside in Indian country.124
:n~ntally
ill
This pronouncement ~~s
based on the fact that "the concept of trial sovereignty, diluted
though it may be, cannot coexist with the process and act of
involuntarily commitment by the power of the state .... "125
After
deciding the state did not have the power or authority to
involuntarily commit an Indian the court had to
gr~pple
with the
question of whether federal authorities had the responsibility to
provide care for Florence Red Dog.
The federal government had
decided to leave the responsibility to the state of South Dakota
to provide inpatient treatment for persons such as Florence Red
Dog and thus became "residual" suppliers of certain health
services.
However,
the court ignored the labeling of "residual"
supplier and held the federal government cannot abandon Florence
Red Dog if she requires mental health care.l26
"Congress has
unambiguously declared that the federal government has a legal
res pons i bi 1 i ty to provide he a 1 th care to Indians. "12 7
(}fl1:l9
Thus, where
27
the state had no power or jurisdiction to act the federal
government had to assume cesponsibility.
Education for Indians,
for more than three centuries, was
under the supervision of missionaries.128
After independence was
gained from England, early treaties ~ade with tribes provided for
Indian education.129
As a result in 1842 there were only
thirty-seven Indian schools, but by 1881 there were over one
hundred schools.130
Assimilation, which was proscribed by the
federal government, brought about the removal of Indian children
from their homes to BIA operated boarjing schools.131
The
boarding schools proved to be inadequate as revealed by the Meriam
Report of 1928, which exposed the outmoded teaching methods,
primitive housing facilities,
staff cruelties, and the requirement
that Indian children work half a day.132
One Indian Chief noted:
Children were taken form their parents' homes,
often quite young, and kept in boarding schools
until they reached middle teens.
Some managed
to get home for the summer holidays, others
didn't.
In most schools, they were forbidden
to speak their own language and had to work
study or play in English ....
The work in the
fi~~ds was done by the children themselves.
:·ij ~;;;vpl. ...: CC1llplailled ~::-ic.iC.. ,-,oc;;;: .:.i ..le wa,:j spenC.
in this way and at prayer than over their
schoolbooks.
The results of this kind of
teaching was unfortunate.133
The disclosures of the Meriam Report led to some improvements
1n
the boarding schools and spurred a demphasis of the role of
boarding schools.
The trend shifted towards public schools and
placing responsibility for education on the states.134
However,
this created a financial problem for the states because
Indi~ns
(Jf)140
28
.ving on reserva~ion.:; are exempt from pcopcrty taxes and
,ntribute little or nothing to state or local taxes.
1is
To remedy
situation in 1934 the federal government passed the Johnson
'Malley Act which provided in its pertinent part:
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized,
in his discretion, to enter into a contract
or contra c t s ~-~h i c h any s tate or t e r r i tory,
or political subdivision thereof, or with
any state university, college, or school, or
any appropriate state or private corporation,
agency or institution, for the education,
medical attention, agriculture assistance,
and social welfare, including relief of
distress of Indians in such state or
.
terr1tory
.... 135
~er
the act,
the BIA reimburses state and local school districts
\
'make up for the tax loss if it is determined that other
!deral, state, and local resources cannot compensate a school
.strict for lost revenue.l36
The act is designed to accomplish three things:
to get the
!deral government out of the business of educating Indian
tildren: to further the long-established practice of turning over
!Sponsibi li ty for Indian education to the states through
nancial inducements: and to "civilize" Indians.l37
In 1970, over
6 million of Johnson 0 'Mally funds were distributed to the
ates and the budget for fiscal year 1971 was $19.6 million.l38
Each state that has a Johnson O'Malley contract, has an Indian
ucation Office in the state department of education.l39
The
fice is supposed to implement the basic contract between the
~te
and federal government or the "State Plan."
(Jf..-14
The "State
29
plan" outlines the contractual agr~e~ents and state policy
regarding Johnson O'Malley expenditures.140
The state office
1s
atso responsible for coordinating Johnson O'Malley funds with
other federal funds the state receives.
La\v No.
Two other laws, Public
81-815 and Public Law No. 81-874, expand assistance to
federally impacted states and communiti~s encompas3ing school
districts that enroll large numbers of Indian children.141
Public
Law No. 81-815 provides for financial help for school construction
and Public Law No. 81-874 attempts to reimburse school districts
for tax exemptions of Indian lands in areas experiencing an
increase in enrollment of Indian children. 142
The battle for Indians gaining access to public schools has
for the most part been won but the case of Piper v. Big Pine
School District, 193 Cal. 664, 226 P. 926 (1924), played an
important role in the struggle.
fifteen year old
Indi~n
state public school.
In Piper, Alice Piper, a female
girl was denied the right to attend a
The basis of her denial to the school was
that she was a person of Indian heritage and the federal
government had already established and maintained a school for the
education and training of members of the Indian race.
The court
judiciously declared that Alice Piper had been denied her equal
protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, stating,
"the
denial to children whose parents, as well as themselves, are
citizens of the United States and of this state, to admittance to
the common schools solely because of color or racial difference
{}f)1 ~2
30
~out having made provisions
5pe c t
for
their education equal in all
s to that a f forded per sons o f a n y o the r race or colo r ,
:>lation of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment ....
1
s a
"1£!.3
e court also stated that Indian children have the choice or
tending privat2ly conducted schools or state public schools.144
even though Alice Piper was eligible to attend the iederally
~ed
reservation school she had the option of also attending the
cal public school.
The court was cognizant of the result the1r
cision could have on local public schools but stated "any
ooom1c consequences of allowing Indian children into public
hools is not the concern of our court but a matter for the
gislature. " 1 4~
The establishement of separate public schools
r Indian children was a possible solution, as long as such
hools were equal in all respects, but again the Court noted
e problem was for the legislature.l4b
Conceding that the
nstitutional guarantees in the case were imperative and
cessary to be given full effect, Alice P1per was to be received
d admitted into the public school as a pupil.1 4 7
When there is a public school in the district,
Indians and
hers in the school district are allowed to vote for the school
ard and part ic ipa te in school pol icy making decisions.
In lf.j7l
ere were 232 public school districts with Indian membership on
e school boards totaling over 6UU Indian board members. 140
Several new options for education in Indian communities are
!l
availaula.
one option is local op8ration of a school under a
{jf)14.1
31
contract with the BIA. 149
In this operation the state and local
public school system is bypassed and funding is entirely federal
or a mixture of federal and private funds.l50
~1inimum cucciculum
standards and requirements contained in t'·1e contract often equal
or exceed state curriculum requirements and there is also r.1or:=
~tential
for Indian input relating to cultural studies and
programs .151
r~sponsible
state.152
Another option is tribe corporations being
for the use of Johnson 0' Malley funds given to a
In this situation the tribal corpocation negotiates a
contract with the state for use of the funds in the education of
Indian children in public schools.
There are also state programs
set up for post secondary training of Indian students.
For
'
example, until 1971 Colorado provided tuition-free education for
qualified Indian students at Fort Lewis College,
in Durango, and
oow provides tuition free education to Colorado Indian
residents .153
~the
In Wisconsin a college scholarship program,
funded
state and BIA, makes it possible for any Indian student 1n
the upper two-thirds of her class to attend a Wisconsin
University.l54
Despite the expans1on of federal assistance to the states,
the majority of Indian children attending public schools are still
denied adequate financial aid to cover the cost of their
schooling.l55
Also there is the problem of mismanagement of federal
funds by the local school districts, as one study concerning
Indian education noted:
32
~en Cong:es~ passed the Johnson O'Malley Act
1n 1934, 1t 1ntended to provide educational
assistance specifically to Indian children.
This intention has been frustrated by the
BIA:s interpretation of the law, by Congr~ss's
des1re to save money by cutting off assistance
to non-Federal Indi~ns, by lack of enforcern~nt of the regulations, and of the flagrant
m1suse of funds by local officials which
has been sanctioned by the states .... Thera
are many possibilities for the creative and
meaningful use of these Federal dollars, but
no one seems to be able to spend the money
in ways which truly help the Indians students.l56
It is well settled that Indians are eligible for state
ervices, along with other state residents, if they meet the
ecessary requirements.
The common arguments that Indians should
ot be allowed to participate in state
ot pay their way are i 11-conceived. 157
~rog~~~s
because they do
State social service
rograms are financed in whole or in part by the federal
:>Vernment.
~onomic
1.lS8
Plus, economic activity on reservations produce great
benefits to the states where the reservations are
locat~d
The state economy is able to benefit from both reservation
Even courts have recognized federal
lsi ness and federal funds.
mding of Indian programs benefit the entire state. 159
States
tould take the position of gratitude and not hostility towards
~ians
in their presence.l60
Indian leadership sees the advantage of Indian, local,
d federal cooperation to achieve objectives. 161
stat~,
To achieve
ximum cooperation and support from the states, there must be a
eling of mutual respect and understanding between Indians and
e states they reside in.
The key to understanding lays in the
33
ct that states must recogn1ze Indians as citizens and rasidents
th of the United
Stat~s
and the states 'r'lherein they reside, and
such are entitled to full benefits and privileges that are
feced to them as cit i ze r'"lS. 16 2
{)(J1J6
Endnotes
L. Rosen, American Indians and the Law 1 (197b).
Id. at 1.
T. Taylor, The States and Their
Ind1~n Citi~ens
l
(1~7~).
Id. at 1 .
G. P1erre, American Indian Crisis
T. Taylor, supra, at
1~u
(1971).
1 •
G. Pierre, supra, at l5U.
T. Taylor, supra, at
l .
Id. at 3 .
(J •
N.D. Houghton, Wards of the United Scates 1d
l.
4J
2.
N.D. Houghton, supra, at lo.
Stat.
2~3,
tjb,
S.C.
3
(19~4).
~.
j.
L. Priest, Uncle Sam's Stepchildren
4.
Id. at 214.
5.
Id. at
b.
Id. at 214.
7.
Id. at
t:S.
Id. at 215.
3.
Id. at 215.
J,
Id. at 215.
l.
T. Taylor, supra, at q7.
2.
Id. at 47.
L
Id. at 4U.
L
Id. at 4U.
I•
Id. at ql-q2.
I,
Id. at 41.
~14.
~1:).
(1~q~).
~14
(l~q~).
7.
Id. at 42.
a.
Id. at 42.
.9.
I d. at 43.
;Q.
Id. at 43.
11.
Id. at 43.
12.
Id. at 43.
13.
Id. at 44.
14.
Id. at 44.
JS.
Id. at 45.
J6.
Id. at 45-46.
37.
Id. at 72.
38.
Id. at 65.
39.
Id. at 70.
~0.
Id. at 65.
u.
Id. at 80.
~2.
Id. at 80.
B.
I j . at 80.
~4.
Id. at 80.
•
'5. v.
Deloria
222 (1983}.
&
c. Lytle, American Indians, American Justice.
l6.
Allen, Denial of Voting Rights to Reservation Indians,
5 Utah L. Rev. 24 71 248 (1956).
n.
Id. at 248.
l8.
Id. at 248.
l9.
Id. at 249.
iO.
Harrison v. LaVeen, 67 Ariz. 3 3 71 196 P.2d 456 (1948}.
II.
Allen, supra, at 249.
12.
Id. at 249.
v.
Deloria
&
C. Lytle, supra, at 223.
rd. at 223.
Id. at 223.
Opsahl v. Johnson, 138 Minn. 42, 163 N.W. 988,
(1917).
Opsahl, 163 N.W. 988 at
v.
Deloria & C. Lytle, supra, at 223-224.
Id. at 224.
Allen v. Merrell,
Q
Utah 2d 32, 305 P.2d 490, 491 {1956).
Id. at 491.
'
Id. at 495.
'
Id. at 492.
'
Id. at 494.
',,
Id. at 494.
'
Id. at 494-9 5.
.
Id. at 495.
. Worth, Constitutional Law: Restriction of Indian Suffrage by
Residence Qualification, 11 Okla. L. Rev. 67, 69 (1958) .
.
Id. at 68.
.
Id. at 69 .
.
Id. at 69.
· V. Deloria & C. Lytle, supra, at 225.
· Prince v. Board of Education, 88 N.M. 548,
11 78 ( 1 9 7 5 ) •
·
Id. at 1178.
·
Id. at 11 78.
·
Id. at 1179.
·
Id. at 118 0.
Id. at 118 2.
~43
P.2d 1176,
L
Id. at 1184.
). v.
Deloria & C. Lytle, supra, at 22~.
t.
Ha r r is on,
2.
v.
3.
Id. at 225.
~.
Little Thunder v. South Dakota,
1975).
s. v.
l 9 6 P . 2 d at 4 6 3 .
Deloria
&
C. Lytle, supra, at 225.
Deloria & C. Lytle,
6.
Id. at 2 26.
7.
Id. at 226.
8.
Id. at 225.
9.
Id. at 225.
0.
Id. at 226.
1.
T. Taylor,
su~,
V. Deloria
&
2.
'
518 F.2d 1253 (8th Cir.
supra, at 226.
at 131.
C. Lytle, supra, at 131.
3.
Id. at 245.
4.
T. Taylor, supra, at 132.
5.
R. Merriam,
Federalism Today 6 (1969), quoted in T. Taylor,
The States and Their Indian Citizens 133 (1972).
6.
T. Taylor,
7.
Id. at 133.
B.
Id. at 1 3 3.
3.
Id. at 132.
supra, at 133.
)0. Id. at 132.
n.
A. Sorkin, American Indians and Federal Aid 162 (1971).
)2. Id. at 163.
)3. Id. at 163.
)4. Id. at 163.
t~(
A-·..
•
~ .....
....
•r
_.
105. Id. at 163.
106. S. Levitan & W. Johnson,
Indian Giving 62 (1975).
101. A. Sorkin, supra, at 163-64.
10 8. Ac o s t a v . S a n D i e go Co u n t y , 1 2 6
92, 98 (1954).
ca 1 .
Ap p • 2J
ct .3 5 , 2 7 2 , p • 2 d
109. Id. at 9 7.
110. Id. at 97.
111. Id. at 97.
112. Id. at 98.
113 . Note , State and Lo c a 1 Gover n me n t s :
Re l i e f o f I nd i a n s to
Indigent County Relief While Living on a Federal Reservation
2 UCLA L. Rev. 143, 144 (1954).
114. Id. at 144.
115.
s.
Levitan &
w.
Johnson, supra, at 56.
116. T. Taylor, supra, at 33.
~
117. Id. at 33.
118. Id. at 3 3
0
119. Id. at 34.
120. Id. at 34.
121. Id. at 21.
122. Id. at 34.
l23. White v. Califano, 437 F.Supp.
581 F.2d 697 (8th Cir. 1979).
543,
547 (D.S.D. 1977), aff'd
.24. Id. at 548.
25. Id. at 550.
26. Id. at 555.
27. Id. at 555.
28. A. Sorkin, supra, at 21.
29. Id. at 21.
(}()15t
Id. at 21.
~ 30.
t31. !d. at 21.
l32. I d. at 21.
l33. G. Pierre, supra, at 183.
l3 4. A • J o s e Ph '/ , Red Pow e r , The A me c i c a n I n d i
Freedom 32 (1971).
"l
n s F i gh t
1
Eo r
t35. T. Taylor, supra, at 25.
t36. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational ?und, An Even Chance 13
(1971).
l37. Id. at 11.
l38. Id. at 11.
l39. T. Ta y 1 or , supra , at 51 .
l40. I d • a t
~ 41
51 •
. S . L e v i t a n & B . He t r i c k ,
B i g B r o the r 1 s
I n d i a n P r o g r a ms
~v i
Reservations 32 (1971).
.42.' Id. at 32.
43. Piper v. Big Pine School District, 193 Cal. 664, 226 P.2d
------------~--~~---------------
926, 929-30 (1924).
44. Id. at 929.
45. Id. at 930.
46. Id. at 930.
47. Id. at 930.
48. T. Taylor, supra, at 83.
49. Id. at 84.
so.
Id. at 84.
)1. Id. at 84.
)2. Id. at 84.
i3. Id. at 85.
14, Id. at 85.
th
NAACP L·~rv1l
U 1 !E~nse
and Educational Fund, supra, at 26.
Id. at 26.
v.
De lor ir~ Fe r~.
Lytle, supra, at 246.
Id. a.t 24b.
Id. at 246.
Id. a t
21~).
· r·•
V• Delori.l
'.c
•
Lytl e '
supra, at 246.
tJCi 1fl,1
Bibliography
Deloria, Vine., and Clifford Lytle.
American Indians, American
Justice.
Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1983.
Houghton, N.D. Wards of the United States.
Arizona, 1946.
Tucson:
University of
Josephy, Alvin.
Red Power, The American Indian's Fight for
Freedom.
New York:
American Heritage Press, 1971.
Levitan, Sarah and Barbara Hetrick.
Big Brother's Indian Programs
with Reservations.
New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Levitan, Sarah and W.B. Johnson.
Indian Giving:
Federal Programs
for Native Americans.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1975.
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
An Even Chance.
New
York:
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 1971.
Pierre, George.
American Indian Crisis.
Company, 1971.
San Antonio:
Priest, Loring B.
Uncle Sam's Stepchildren.
of Nebraska Press, 1942.
Lincoln:
Rosen, Lawrence.
American Indians and the Law.
Duke University, 1976.
Sorkin, Alan.
American Indians and Federal Aid.
The Brookings Institution, 1971. 4
The Naylor
University
New Brunswick:
Washington:
The States and Their Indian Citizens.
Taylor, Theodore.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1972.
Washington:
3TATES AND THEI ~ Il'iDI.-'\n C I TI z ~r;s
I.
Introduction
A.
B.
c.
D.
II.
[II.
IV.
Federal Supremacy
"New Federalism"
The Citizenship Act of 1924
fre- 1924 Developments
Increased State Involvement in Indian Affairs
A.
The
1.
2.
J.
1950's
The Governor's Conferences
Termination of Federal Services
Reimbursement folicy
B.
The 1960's
c.
Present State Involvement
Indian Voting Rights
A.
State R~strictions on Limiting Rights
1. The Fifteenth Amendment
2. The Fourteenth Amendment
B.
Attempts to Restrict Voting Rights
1. 3everance of Tribal Relationships
2. Lack of State Power Over Indians, ~rince v. Board
of Education, 88 N.M. 548, 54J P.2d 1176 (1975).
J. Residency Requirements, Allen v. Merrell, 6 Utah 2d
]2, J05 F.2d 490 (1956).
•
'
4. Fear of Shifting Control, Allen v. Merrell.
5· Guardianship
State Services
A.
B.
C.
Scope and Problems
Welfare Assistance, Acosta v. San Diego County, 126
Cal. 2d 455, 272 P.2d 92 (1954).
Health Services
1. Scope and Problems
2. Elgibility of Services, White v. Califano, 4J7 F. Supp
543 (D.S.D. 1977), aff'd 581 F.2d 697 (8th Cir. 1979).
.:::.
D.
C:ducation
1· 3cope and ~roble~s
2. !ederal Involvement; Boarding 3chools
J. Shift to the 3tates: Public Schools
4. The Johnson 0' ~.~alley Act
5· ~iper v. Big ~ine School District, 19J Cal. 664,
226 P.2d 926 (1924).
6.
E.
Other Options Available
Conclusion; A Look to the Future
Charles M::>rse
November 10, 1987
(J01fl6