In The District Court Of County State Of Oklahoma Plaintiff, Case No: Fill & Download for Free

Reasons for Filibuster:Neil Gorsuch is not considered “mainstream” regarding his beliefs:Discrimination: In the National Review, Judge Gorsuch wrote:“American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education. This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary.”Neil Gorsuch“Judge Gorsuch’s hostility to the use of courts by discrimination victims to enforce their rights under the Constitution and federal law demonstrates his ideological agenda and has been reflected in his judicial decisions, particularly dissents and concurrences, during his decade on the bench.”Judge Gorsuch“Strickland v. UPS. In this case, the majority held that Carole Strickland, a UPS account executive, could proceed with a sex discrimination claim under Title VII based on evidence that she was treated worse than male colleagues despite her outperforming them in sales. Judge Gorsuch dismissed the evidentiary record and dissented; he voted to throw the victim’s discrimination claim out of court.”Judge Gorsuch“Weeks v. Kansas, writing for a conservative panel, Judge Gorsuch threw out another Title VII case where the plaintiff, Rebecca Weeks, was fired in retaliation for her advocating on behalf of two colleagues who had been discriminated against. In his opinion, Judge Gorsuch declined to consider a superseding Supreme Court decision that might have benefitted the plaintiff simply because she did not raise it in her briefs, a troubling approach because judges have a duty to consider relevant case law regardless of whether the parties have cited it.”Judge GorsuchImmigration:“In the closely-divided en banc decision in Zamora v. Elite Logistics, Inc., Judge Gorsuch voted to affirm the district court’s granting of summary judgment which blocked a Title VII national origin discrimination case from going to trial despite evidence of animus, unlawful reverification, and document abuse by the employer. The lead concurrence in this case, which Judge Gorsuch joined, reflects an approach that insulates employers from liability for discrimination against immigrant workers so long as they claim that they were unaware of the law or took their actions due to a fear of sanction by federal immigration authorities – even where those actions themselves violated immigration law. Judge Gorsuch’s record suggests that if he were confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, he would give great leeway to immigration enforcement strategies that use the fear of sanction against employers as a principal mechanism, and would condone employers hiding behind federal immigration laws to justify unlawful workplace practices.”Judge GorsuchWomen’s Health: “Judge Gorsuch has written or joined opinions that would restrict women’s health care, including allowing religious beliefs to override women’s access to birth control and defunding Planned Parenthood.”“Judge Gorsuch has supported religious institutions which objected to requirements for employers to provide access to contraception. In one of his most high-profile cases, he defended the religious owners of retailer Hobby Lobby who refused to fund birth control via staff health insurance.”Trump picks Neil Gorsuch as nominee for Supreme Court - BBC News“Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert, Judge Gorsuch dissented from the majority’s decision to keep in place a preliminary injunction that stopped the state of Utah from blocking access to health care and education for thousands of Planned Parenthood's patients. If the policy had gone into effect, it would have cut off access to an after-school sex education program for teens and STD testing and treatment for at-risk communities.”Judge GorsuchGorsuch_Case_Analyses.pdf“Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, Judge Gorsuch dissented from the majority’s decision approving the accommodation in the birth control benefit that allows non-profit employers to opt out of the benefit but makes sure the employees get birth control coverage. Judge Gorsuch joined a dissent that argued the simple act of filling out an opt-out form constitutes a substantial burden on religious exercise.”Judge GorsuchGorsuch_Case_Analyses.pdf“Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, he signed on to an opinion allowing certain for-profit employers to refuse to comply with the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act. Citing to Citizens United v. FEC, the decision held that corporations can be “persons” with religious beliefs and that employers can use those religious beliefs to block employees’ insurance coverage of birth control.”Judge GorsuchGorsuch_Case_Analyses.pdfLGBT Rights: “2005 National Review article Judge Gorsuch expressed disdain for those seeking to use the courts to enforce their rights under the law, and he specifically criticized LGBT Americans who have relied on federal courts in their quest for equality.”Gorsuch’s rationale he employed in the Hobby Lobby case – a license to discriminate for private corporations – has also been used by several states to justify discrimination against LGBT Americans.Judge GorsuchGorsuch_Case_Analyses.pdfDruley v. Patton, Gorsuch “voted to reject a claim by a transgender woman incarcerated in Oklahoma who alleged that her constitutional rights were violated when she was denied medically necessary hormone treatment and the right to wear feminine clothing. Other federal courts have reached the opposite conclusion in such cases.”Judge GorsuchPolice Misconduct:In the case Wilson v. City of Lafayette, a 22-year-old man possessing marijuana was fleeing arrest, and a police officer shot him in the head with a stun gun from a distance of 10-15 feet away, which was contrary to the police department’s training manual. The young man, Ryan Wilson, died. Judge Gorsuch held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force claim, reasoning that the use of force was reasonable because the young man was fleeing arrest. The dissent in this case criticized Judge Gorsuch’s analysis and stated:‘In the present case, it would be unreasonable for an officer to fire a taser probe at Ryan Wilson’s head when he could have just as easily fired the probe into his back. The taser training materials note that officers should not aim at the head or throat unless the situation dictates a higher level of injury risk. Nothing about the situation here required an elevated level of force.’”Judge GorsuchStudents with Disabilities: “Judge Gorsuch has consistently ruled against students with disabilities seeking educational services to which they were entitled under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).”Judge Gorsuch“In A.F. v. Española Public Schools, he dismissed a claim brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act because the school district had previously settled a lawsuit with the student for IDEA violations. A dissenting judge in this case criticized Judge Gorsuch’s reasoning and observed: “This was clearly not the intent of Congress and, ironically enough, harms the interests of the children that IDEA was intended to protect.””Judge Gorsuch“In Garcia v. Board of Education of Albuquerque Public Schools, Judge Gorsuch held that a student who left the school out of frustration with the school’s failure to follow the IDEA was entitled to no remedy. “Judge GorsuchIn Thompson R2-J School District v. Luke P.,he held that a student with autism did not have a right under the IDEA to attend a private residential program, even though the district court and a Colorado Department of Education hearing officer determined that such a placement was necessary for Luke and that public schools had been unsuccessful in addressing his educational needs.”Judge GorsuchGorsuch’s Decisions Against Worker’s Rights:“opinions favor corporations over workers and he's shown ‘a stunning lack of humanity’ in some of those decisions” - Trump Supreme Court pick Gorsuch“Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The Chevron doctrine requires deference to federal agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous laws as long as the interpretation is reasonable, which has resulted in the safeguarding of workers’ rights, environmental protection, consumer protections, food safety, and many other protections for people’s health and well-being. Judge Gorsuch believes that judges should make these decisions instead of agencies with the relevant expertise, which would lead to a dramatic expansion of the power and role of the judiciary. He would relegate this vital precedent to the dustbin of history because it disfavors the corporate interests he championed as a lawyer and as a judge. As several commentators have noted, Judge Gorsuch’s cramped view of the Chevron doctrine is even more extreme than the views of Justice Antonin Scalia.”Judge GorsuchCorporate Bias:“Judge Gorsuch’s judicial activism was on display last year in the case Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, where he issued a lengthy concurrence to an opinion he himself had written – a signal that his colleagues refused to sign on to his ideological agenda.”Judge Gorsuch“In his concurrence, he questioned the constitutional legitimacy of a decades-old binding precedent, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The Chevron doctrine requires deference to federal agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous laws as long as the interpretation is reasonable, which has resulted in the safeguarding of workers’ rights, environmental protection, consumer protections, food safety, and many other protections for people’s health and well-being. Judge Gorsuch believes that judges should make these decisions instead of agencies with the relevant expertise, which would lead to a dramatic expansion of the power and role of the judiciary. He would relegate this vital precedent to the dustbin of history because it disfavors the corporate interests he championed as a lawyer and as a judge. As several commentators have noted, Judge Gorsuch’s cramped view of the Chevron doctrine is even more extreme than the views of Justice Antonin Scalia.”Judge GorsuchMoney in Politics: “Judge Gorsuch expressed openness to providing a higher level of constitutional protection to a donor’s right to make political contributions than the Court at times has provided the right to vote.”Judge Gorsuch“In Riddle v. Hickenlooper, he wrote a separate concurrence that suggested courts should afford strict scrutiny, the highest constitutional protection, to political contribution limits. That view puts Gorsuch among the ranks of judges who are extremely hostile to campaign finance reform measures and would essentially gut the ability of Congress and the states to set any reasonable limits on money in our elections.””Judge GorsuchEnvironmental Protection: “Judge Gorsuch’s rejection of the binding Chevron decision, which prevents judges from substituting their judgment for that of federal agencies with expertise, betrays a general hostility to regulatory agencies and regulatory safeguards that protect our air, water, lands, and wildlife.”Judge Gorsuch“In United States v. Nichols, he wrote a lengthy dissent that tried to revive an obscure legal doctrine that could strike down many significant environmental laws.”Judge Gorsuch“In Wilderness Society v. Kane County, he concurred with a decision to dismiss a claim brought by several environmental organizations asserting that a county ordinance that opened a large stretch of federal land to off-highway vehicles was preempted by federal law. The dissent in this case observed that the majority holding “will have long-term deleterious effects on the use and management of federal public lands.””GorsuchRight to a Fair Trial:In the case United States v. Benally, Judge Gorsuch voted to deny a petition for rehearing en banc by a Native American defendant who was convicted by a racially biased jury. The foreman of the jury “told the other jurors that he used to live on or near an Indian Reservation, that ‘[w]hen Indians get alcohol, they all get drunk,’ and that when they get drunk, they get violent.” A second juror said she agreed with the foreman. In light of these troubling statements, the district court threw out the jury verdict, concluding that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial had been violated. The Tenth Circuit disagreed and upheld the conviction. Although Judge Gorsuch was not a member of the original panel, his vote to deny rehearing en banc was a vote of support.”Judge Gorsuch“Judge Gorsuch’s approach to this issue was recently rejected by the Supreme Court in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, where the Court ruled that anti-Hispanic statements during jury deliberations constituted a Sixth Amendment violation.”Judge GorsuchVoting Rights:“In 2006, when he was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch stated in his Senate questionnaire that between June 2005 and July 2006, he served as the Principal Deputy to the Associate Attorney General, a job in which he managed several litigating components at the Justice Department, including the Civil Rights Division. On Gorsuch’s watch, political appointees ran roughshod over career attorneys who sought to lodge Section 5 objections under the Voting Rights Act to Georgia’s photo ID law.”“This disgraceful practice was exposed in a November 2005 Washington Post article: “A team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because it was likely to discriminate against black voters, but they were overruled the next day by higher-ranking officials at Justice, according to department documents…. The plan was blocked on constitutional grounds in October by a U.S. District Court judge, who compared the measure to a Jim Crow-era poll tax.””Judge GorsuchGorsuch should be questioned about his role in supervising the Georgia photo ID litigation and the extent to which he was involved in supporting the use of photo ID laws by Georgia and other states, and about his role in overturning the recommendations of career attorneys to object to such laws.Judge GorsuchGorsuch’s support of Spakovsky: “Few people in the Republican Party have done more to limit voting rights than Hans von Spakovsky. He’s been instrumental in spreading the myth of widespread voter fraud and backing new restrictions to make it harder to vote. But it appears that von Spakovsky had an admirer in Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, according to e-mails released to the Senate Judiciary Committee covering Gorsuch’s time working in the George W. Bush Administration.”In E-mails, Neil Gorsuch Praised a Leading Republican Activist Behind Voter Suppression Efforts“In another e-mail, when von Spakovksy said he was participating in a “Ballot Access and Voter Integrity Conference” at the Justice Department, Gorsuch wrote, “Sounds interesting. Glad to see you’re doing this. I may try to attend some of it.” Though the Justice Department was supposed to investigate both voting discrimination and voter fraud, the latter cause took priority and eventually led to Republican US Attorneys’ being wrongly fired from their jobs for refusing to prosecute fraud cases.”In E-mails, Neil Gorsuch Praised a Leading Republican Activist Behind Voter Suppression EffortsPoliticized Hiring in Civil Rights Division:“The year in which Gorsuch helped manage the Civil Rights Division, political appointees there engaged in unlawful hiring discrimination against lawyers with liberal affiliations, and this became the subject of a 2008 Inspector General report entitled “An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring and Other Improper Personnel Actions in the Civil Rights Division.””“Gorsuch should be questioned by Senators about his knowledge of and role in these activities, which constituted an unlawful attempt to exclude lawyers from the Department of Justice who had a civil rights background and who would have aggressively enforced federal civil rights laws. He should also be questioned about his role in the 2005 appointment of Bradley Schlozman – whom the Inspector General concluded committed the most infractions – to be the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.”Possibility of a Successful filibuster:“There are now at least 36 Senate Democrats who oppose Gorsuch and have pledged to block him with a filibuster, just five shy of the number that would be required to mount a successful filibuster.” - Dem opposition to Trump Supreme Court pick Gorsuch grows; Schumer warns GOPThe Federalist Society and The Heritage foundation wanted Gorsuch to be selectedThe Federalist Society & The Heritage Foundation are “immensely influential but largely unseen network of conservative organizations, donors and lawyers who all share a common goal: Fill the federal courts with scores of judges who are committed to the narrow interpretation of the Constitution that they believe the founders intended.” - In Gorsuch, Conservative Activist Sees Test Case for Reshaping the Judiciary“Federalist Society’s supporters include well-known industry-oriented and libertarian-minded business leaders like Charles G. and David H. Koch; the family foundation of Richard Mellon Scaife; and the Mercer family, which gave significantly to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and helped start Breitbart News.” - In Gorsuch, Conservative Activist Sees Test Case for Reshaping the JudiciaryThese groups are also motivated by extreme religious beliefs.Gerrymandering:“Since 1812, gerrymandering has been increasingly used as a tool to divide and distort the electorate. More often than not, state legislatures are tasked with drawing district maps, allowing the electoral foxes to draw and defend their henhouse districts. While no party is innocent when it comes to gerrymandering, a Washington Post analysis in 2014 found that eight of the 10 most gerrymandered districts in the United States were drawn by Republicans…Gerrymandering also disempowers and distorts citizen votes — which leads to decreased turnout and a sense of powerlessness. In 2010, droves of Tea Party activists eager to have their voices heard quickly realized that their own representative was either a solidly liberal Democrat in an overwhelmingly blue district or a solidly conservative Republican in an overwhelmingly red district. Those representatives would not listen because the electoral map meant that they didn’t need to. Those who now oppose President Donald Trump are quickly learning the same lesson about the electoral calculations made by their representatives as they make calls or write letters to congressional representatives who seem about as likely to be swayed as granite. This helps to explain why 2014 turnout sagged to just 36.4 percent, the lowest turnout rate since World War II. Why bother showing up when the result already seems preordained?”Gerrymandering is the biggest obstacle to American democracy“The Supreme Court will rule on partisan gerrymandering in 2017, and it’s a case that could transform — and reinvigorate — American democracy at a time when a positive shock is sorely needed.”Gerrymandering is the biggest obstacle to American democracy“Next term, the Supreme Court is poised to hear the most promising challenge to partisan gerrymandering in more than a decade. Gorsuch is overwhelmingly likely to vote to allow such gerrymandering to continue.”Memo to Democratic senators: If you like your job, filibuster GorsuchThis isn’t just about being bitter over Merrick Garland.The Nuclear Option:“If Democrats amass enough support to block a confirmation vote…Republican Senate leaders to try to change the chamber's long-standing rules and allow confirmation by a simple majority, a move backed by Trump that is sometimes called the "nuclear option." - More Democratic senators oppose Trump's U.S. Supreme Court pick“unilaterally changing Senate rules to lower the threshold for Supreme Court justices from 60 votes to a simple majority in the 100-member Senate…it would amount to a dramatic departure from Senate norms of bipartisanship and collegiality.”Dem opposition to Trump Supreme Court pick Gorsuch grows; Schumer warns GOPThe Nuclear option is dangerous:“White House expects between 70 to 90 appeals court positions to open up over the next four years. That would give Mr. Trump the opportunity to fill anywhere from one-third to half of all appellate seats — a profound impact considering that those courts are often the final word on thousands of cases that never reach the Supreme Court.In Gorsuch, Conservative Activist Sees Test Case for Reshaping the JudiciaryFilibustering was the strategy of the GOP to fight Obama on everything and, like McConnell said, to try and make Obama a one term President.Democratic politicians have historically been much more willing to compromise because that is what their constitutes expected of them. Republican politicians, on the other hand, were much less willing to compromise because that is what their constitutes expected of them:Republicans in Congress have very little incentive to come to the middle on the big issues before the country.And a new poll from the Pew Research Center says it all: Quite simply, it's because the GOP base demands principles over compromise.According to the new national Pew survey, 50 percent of Americans would rather that their elected officials "make compromises with people they disagree with" rather than "stick to their positions" (44 percent).But when you break it down by party, you see the reason we have gridlock.While 59 percent of Democrats prefer compromise to principled stands, just 36 percent of Republicans say the same (compared to 55 percent who want principled stands).For Republicans, that's actually up slightly from the 32 percent who wanted compromise two years ago, after the 2010 election in which the GOP reaped huge gains by standing resolutely against Obama's agenda. But over the same span, the percentage of Democrats calling for compromise has risen significantly -- from 46 percent to 59 percent. And independents have also moved by double digits toward favoring compromise.Whether or not you agree with the idea that Republicans are more unwilling to compromise than Obama and the Democrats, that's certainly the perception that exists today.For Republicans, it seems, they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Their base demands that they resist compromise, but doing so causes the party as a whole to fall out of favor with the American public.The Post-ABC poll shows 71 percent of Americans disapprove of the GOP, while 59 percent disapprove of the Democratic Party and 41 percent disapprove of Obama.Under this set-up, there are really no easy answers for the GOP. If the party's lawmakers compromise more, they may gain favor with the political middle, but their base will resist -- and has resisted -- and they will risk their political careers. If they continue to make principled stands, they will likely win reelection, but their party's brand may remain, as GOP former congressman Tom Davis (Va.) famously said, the political equivalent of "dog food."How and whether Republicans solve this riddle will say a lot about how they progress as a force in American politics.Why Republicans have no incentive to compromiseMore Democrats Than Republicans Prefer Candidate Who CompromisesAmericans Again Call for Compromise in WashingtonThe reality is, there is a lot at stake in the Supreme Court and many of the Democratic politician’s constitutes don’t want Gorsuch to be confirmed:Democrats could be putting up more of a fight than they have so far, and have faced criticism from left-leaning advocacy groups as a result…An overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans, at 92 percent and 90 percent respectively, believe that “decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court have an impact on my everyday life as a citizen,” according a C-SPAN poll released on Friday.There are plenty of Democrats who don’t want Gorsuch confirmed. It’s just that in the end, liberals may care slightly less about this particular Supreme Court appointment than conservatives. Pew data indicates that although a full 50 percent of Democrats believe Gorsuch shouldn’t be confirmed, an even higher percentage of Republicans, at 55 percent, didn’t want Garland to be confirmed.There are also indications that the Supreme Court appointment was a more decisive issue for Trump voters than Clinton voters. Seventy-five percent of Trump voters told pollsters that Supreme Court appointments were either the most important factor or an important factor in how they decided to vote, compared to 68 percent of Clinton voters, according to NBC News…Liberal advocacy groups have expressed disappointment in the collective Democratic response to the nomination…wrote in a letter to Democratic Senators earlier this month, arguing that congressional Democrats had “failed to demonstrate a strong, unified resistance to this nominee” and urging “Democratic senators to immediately make clear your opposition.”…Another challenge for liberal activists who want Senate Democrats to oppose the nomination is that the Supreme Court fight has so far flown relatively under the radar in the midst of congressional battles over the Affordable Care Act, and protest from activists to the Trump administration’s early moves in office…Why Are Democrats Holding Back on Gorsuch?

HistoryThe name Cayuga (Gayogohó:no') means "People of the Great Swamp."They belong to the Iroquoian language family, and were one of the original the Five Nations of the League of the Iroquois, who traditionally lived in New York.[3]The Five Nations were the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Senecaand Cayuga. When the Tuscarora joined the Iroquois Confederation in 1722, the confederacy was known as the Six Nations.In early times, the Cayuga lived primarily between Owasco and Cayuga lakes, which lay between the territory of the Onondaga and Seneca. Jesuits founded missions among the Cayuga in the mid-17th century. In 1660, there were approximately 1,500 Cayuga.[3]In the beginning of the 18th century, the Cayuga primarily lived in three villages, composed of at least 30 longhouses. About 500 people lived in each of these villages.[2]The Cayuga became trading partner with the French from Canada and were active in the beaver fur trade. They also traded with the Huron for birch bark goods.[2]All the main Iroquois nations except the Oneida had allied with the British in the American Revolution. They were considered defeated in the war. The British gave up both their and Indian claims to lands in treaty negotiations, and the Iroquois were forced to cede their lands to the United States. Most relocated to Canada after the Treaty of Canandaigua in 1794, although some bands were allowed small reservations in New York. New York made separate purchases and leases of land from the Indians, which were not ratified by the US Congress.GovernmentThe Cayuga Nation is headquartered in Seneca Falls, New York. They are governed by a council of chiefs, chosen by clanmothers. The Cayuga Nation is part of the Haudenosaunee confederacy.LocationUnder the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua, 64,000 acres at the north end of Cayuga Lakewere reserved to the Cayuga. This reservation was never disestablished, but New York sold off the land.[4]For the past 200 years, citizens mainly lived on Seneca reservations.[5]In 2005 the Cayuga Nation began to purchase land within its reservation territory and provide assistance for Cayuga Nation members to return to their homeland.[6]Tribal enrollmentChildren of tribal members can be enrolled at birth. As the tribe has a matrilinealkinship system, children are considered to be born into the mother's clan. Descent and inheritance are passed through the maternal lines. The tribe requires members to have a mother who is Cayuga.[7]Economic developmentEditThe nation controls several businesses, including Lakeside Trading convenience stores; Pullens Towing and Recovery service; Harford Glen Water, a pure water bottler; Gakwiyo Garden, which grows 35 types of fruits and vegetables and provides food for over one hundred member households; Cayuga Corner, which sells fresh produce and flowers; and Cayuga Sugar Shack, an ice cream stand and miniature golf course in Seneca Falls.[8]They own Lakeside Entertainment, which includes two Class II Gamingfacilities; however, both are temporarily closed[9]due to ongoing legal battles with the State of New York.Lakeside Trading PostEditThe Cayuga Indian Nation owns two pieces of property from which it operates its Lakeside Trading Post: a convenience store and gas station operation. One store is located in the Town of Seneca Falls and the other in the Village of Union Springs.On November 25, 2008, the Seneca and Cayuga County Sheriffs' Departments seized all the cigarettes at two locations of the Lakeside Trading Post because of the Cayuga refusal to remit state excise taxes on sales. The Cayuga have said that as a sovereign nation, they do not owe taxes to the state. This was part of a long-standing issue with the counties and state. The Seneca County District Attorney said the counties were in the right because the Cayugas did not own any sovereign land in either county.The state contends that only by operating on sovereign land (a reservation) would the tribe be exempt from the taxes.A 2005 US Supreme Court decision ruled that Indian tribes could not claim sovereignty on land they purchased; they had to apply to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and have the land put in trust for their use.[10]The Cayuga Indian Nation sought to enjoin the authorities from initiating any prosecution and to compel them to return the seized cigarettes.[11]New York Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Fisher denied the Cayugas' motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the action.Land claimsEditThe Cayuga Nation of New York began a land claim action on November 19, 1980, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York to pursue legislative and monetary restitution for land taken from it by the State of New York during the 18th and 19th centuries. New York entered into land sales and leases with the Cayuga Nation after the signing of the Treaty of Canandaigua after the American Revolutionary War. Its failure to get approval of the United States Congress meant the transactions were illegal as it did not have the constitutional authority to deal with the tribes. The Treaty of Canandaigua holds that only the United States government may enter into legal discussions with the Haudenosaunee.In 1981, the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma was added as a plaintiff in the claim. A jury trial on damages was held from January 18 – February 17, 2000. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York and the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, finding current fair market value damages of $35 million and total fair rental value damages of $3.5 million. The jury gave the state a credit for the payments it had made to the Cayugas of about $1.6 million, leaving the total damages at approximately $36.9 million. On October 2, 2001, the court issued a decision and order which awarded a prejudgment interest award of $211 million and a total award of $247.9 million.Both the plaintiffs and the defendants appealed this award. On June 28, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a decision that reversed the judgment of the trial court. It ruled in favor of the defendants, based on the doctrine of laches. Essentially the court ruled that the plaintiffs had taken too long to present their case, when it might have been equitably settled earlier.The Cayuga Indian Nation of New York sought review of this decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which was denied on May 15, 2006. The time in which the Cayuga Indian Nation could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to rehear the case has passed.

No, not exactly true. Native people could vote in many states earlier that that. However, it is partly true in that in some states Native people were being prevented from voting before the 1970s. In some states Native people continue to be prevented from voting to this day. It has been a very long path for voting rights for Native people in the US. It has much in common with voting rights for other minorities but with its own twists and turns and it is less well known.In 1924, Native Americans got US citizenship in the Indian Citizenship Act. Before that about 1/2 were citizens by other means. After 1924, in theory, all Natives should have been able to vote. But it was not the case for many people. It should be noted that this was also the case for man minorities in many places in the 1920s.It helps to go back over the history. In 1880 John Elk, who was Winnebago tried to registrar to vote in Omaha. He said he was a citizen under the 14th amendment. In Elk v Wilkins the Supreme Cort ruled he was not a citizen. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)In 1890, the United States Census formally enumerated all of the Indians of the country. According to the Census, there were a total of 248,253 Indians in the United States. However because of racism in some places Native people did not report that were Native. In New England many passed as French Canadians, for example.The Indian Naturalization Act of 1890 was passed and finally granted citizenship to some Native Americans by an application process. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs announced that the 8th of February was to be celebrated as Franchise Day. It was on this day that the Dawes Act was signed into law. The Dawes Act provided the legal mechanism for Indians to become citizens of the United States, its primary purpose was to break up communal land holdings on reservations and to give each Indian family a small plot of land to farm.Then, in Matter of Heff, the Supreme Court held in 1905 that Indians became American citizens as soon as they accepted their land allotment as was happening under the Dawes Act. The decision infuriated Congress and the Bureau of Indian Affairs who had insisted that Indians who accepted allotments could not become citizens until the end of their trust period of twenty years.Matter of Heff, 197 U.S. 488 (1905)In 1916 the United States v. Nice, had the Supreme Court take away some rights and said that Native people could be citizens and also treated as minors. United States v. Nice, 241 U.S. 591 (1916)Ethan Anderson (of the Pomo tribe) first attempted to register to vote with the Lake County clerk in 1915, and was denied. He and several members of his met and worked to raise money for two years so that he might take his case to court. A state court ruled in his favor in 1917, for under the Burke Act of 1906 any Native American who had received a patent-in-fee or left a reservation to lead a “civilized life” was granted citizenship and through that the right to vote. The court case (Anderson versus Mathews) gave non-reservation Indians the right to vote. Anderson had attempted to register to vote in Mendocino County and was refused. The court case, which was decided by the California Supreme Court, was funded by the Indian Board of Cooperation. Anderson v. MathewsDuring World War I, Indians were required to register for the draft but were ineligible to be drafted since they were not citizens. Yavapai physician Dr. Carlos Montezuma protested the draft policy and urged the United States to make Indians citizens and then draft them. They enlisted in large numbers. Around 10,000 Indians served in the military in WWI. In 1919, Congress passed an act which provided citizenship for all Indians who served in the military or in naval establishments during World War I.In North Carolina, the Eastern Cherokee tribal council drafted a resolution which argued that the fact that the Eastern Cherokee were denied the right to vote in North Carolina also denied them fair treatment and equal rights by county draft boards. The council asserted that“any organization or group that would deprive a people of as sacred a right as the right of suffrage would not hesitate to deprive them of other constitutional rights including the three inalienable rights – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, if the opportunity to do so presents itself.”After WWI there was a great deal of pressure to grant citizenship by Native rights groups and allies. The 1924 act was promoted by progressives who were concerned about the constitutional rights of Indians and who wished to free Indians from federal control.Two days after passing the Indian Citizenship Act, Congress passed a bill to allot the Eastern Cherokee in North Carolina. However they neglected to upgrade the language in the bill to account for the Indian Citizenship Act. The bill said that the Eastern Cherokee would become citizens only after receiving and registering their allotments. The NC State Attorney General said that the Eastern Cherokee were not citizens because this bill superseded the Indian Citizenship Act. The Bureau of Indian Affairs said they were citizens. The Cherokee NC were treated as though they were not citizens and were not allowed to register to vote.Charles Curtis was the 31st Vice President of the United States from 1929 to 1933. He was a Native American from the Kaw tribe (and also Osage and Potawatomi). He had been Senator from Kansas from 1907 to 1929 (except for 2 years) and was majority leader. During his time in the Senate, Curtis became an original sponsor of the Equal Rights Amendment. The Republican part had the ERA on its part platform plank from 1940 until 1980. Before that he had been in the House from 1893 to 1907.Here is VP Curtis campaigning on the in Montana with Crow tribal members in 1928. In the Depression he pushed Hoover to create a 5 da work week to help with jobs.In Congress passed another act in 1928 which specifically granted citizenship to the North Carolina Cherokee. Two years later Eastern Cherokee leader Henry M. Owl was denied the right to register to vote in 1930. The state of NC said he was not a citizen. So, Congress passed another act once again reaffirming citizenship for the Eastern Cherokee. The Southern states said is was interfering with “States Rights”. The same lies they used to stop African American voting. Henry Owl had a MA in Cherokee history from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This is his dissertation: The Eastern band of Cherokee Indians before and after the removalIn Arizona two Pima Indians (Gila River Indian Community), Peter H. Porter and Rudolph Johnson, attempted to vote in 1928. The Arizona Supreme Court in Porter v. Hall concluded that Indians were not entitled to vote because they were “wards of the government” and persons “under guardianship” were prohibited from voting by the state constitution. Porter v. Hall, 34 Ariz. 308Other states continued to fight voting b Native Americans as well. The Montana state constitution was amended in 1932 to permit only taxpayers to vote. Since Indians on reservations did not pay some local taxes, they could not become voters.A 1937 report by the US Solicitor General found that several states denied Indians the right to vote. It found that four states—Idaho, New Mexico, Maine, and Washington. Colorado’s attorney general replied: “It is our opinion that until Congress enfranchises the Indian, he will not have the right to vote.” Indians were not allowed to serve on juries in Colorado until 1956. Tribal members on reservations were not allowed to vote there until 1970.NC continued to deny Cherokees the vote until after World War II. North Carolina now claimed that Indians were illiterate. The superintendent of the Cherokee Agency reported: “We have had Indian graduates of Carlisle, Haskell, and other schools in stances much better educated than the registrar himself, turned down because they did not read or write to his satisfaction.”In 1940 the Nationality Act which again conferred citizenship on American Indians and required that Indian men register for the draft. In spite of the reconfirmation of citizenship, some states, such as New Mexico and Arizona, refused to allow Indians to vote. The Act was opposed by the Indian Defense League of America. Tuscarora leader Clinton Rickard urged those who wish to volunteer for the armed services do so as alien non-residents.At the Tohono O’Odham village of Toapit in Arizona, 30 men under the leadership of Pia Machita refused to register for the draft in 1904. Marshalls and Indian police attempted to arrest the leader, but they were roughed up and forced to release the 84 year old Machita. The Tohono O’Odham escaped into the desert.During the World War II, 24,521 American Indians served in the military and received the following awards: Air Medal (71), Silver Star (51), Bronze Star (47), Distinguished Flying Cross (34), and Medal of Honor (2). More than 480 Indians were killed during the war. Brigadier General Clarence Tinker, an Osage from Oklahoma, headed the Hawaiian Air Force. Joseph (“Jocko”) Clark, a Cherokee from Oklahoma, was the only Indian naval admiral.In the Pacific, two American Indian Marines were involved in raising the American flag on top of Mount Suribachi on the Japanese island of Iwo Jima.Louis Charlo, the great-grandson of the Bitterroot Salish Chief Charlo, was born in Missoula, Montana in 1926. In November 1943 he enlisted in the U.S. Marines. The battle for Iwo Jima started on February 19, 1945 and four days later Private Charlo and seven other Marines reached the summit of Mount Suribachi. At 10:20 AM, Charlo and the other Marines used a 20-foot section of pipe to raise an American flag from Missoula at the top of the mountain. Several hours later, this flag was replaced by a larger flag. Charlo was killed by a sniper on March 2, 1945Ira Hayes was born in 1923 on the Gila River Pima Indian Reservation. He enlisted in the Marines in August, 1942. He became a “paramarine”. On top of Mount Suribachi, he was one of six Marines photographed raising the second larger American flag. He did not want to be identified but later was. He did not like the attention and had troubles after the war. He was found dead of exposure near his home in Arizona on January 24, 1955, only 32 years old.The draft board in Gallup, New Mexico decided that non-English speaking Navajo were not eligible to be drafted. Tribal leaders objected to the ruling because many Navajo wanted to serve.In Arizona, six Hopi men were arrested for not registering for the draft. The Hopi claimed that registration was against their religious traditions, but a federal judge ruled that these traditions did not have any bearing on draft registration. The Hopi men were sentenced to a year and a day in a prison camp.In New York, the Six Nations Iroquois – Mohawk, Seneca, Oneida, Onondaga, Tuscarora, Cayuga – declared war on the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) in 1942.The Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board (Sioux and Assiniboine tribes) in Montana passed a resolution supporting U.S. involvement in the war and pledged men, women, and materials to the war effort. The Board asked to use $10,000 of their tribal money to purchase defense bonds.On Attu Island in the Aleutians Aleut people were the primary inhabitants. On June 7, 1942, six months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the 301st Independent Infantry Battalion of the Japanese Northern Army landed on the island. Three Natives died in the attack. The 42 Attu inhabitants who survived the Japanese invasion were taken to a prison camp near Otaru, Hokkaidō. Sixteen of them died while they were imprisoned.In 1945, a Japanese bomb carried by balloon landed on the Hupa reservation in Northern California.Indian veterans returned home with different expectations about how they were to be treated. They had fought in Europe and in the Pacific and had been treated as equals. They returned home to find that they were still second-class citizens (and in some states, the recognition of their citizenship lacking). The Indian veterans expected to be able to vote and when states attempted to deny them that right, they took their case to the courts. Throughout the country, barriers to Indian voting began to fall. But just as in the segregated South, some other states tried to refuse voting rights. The last states to refuse with state law were New Mexico and Arizona and UtahAfter WWII in 1946, North Carolina county registrars refused to register Eastern Cherokee war veterans to vote. The Cherokee appealed the decision to the governor and attorney general. Nothing was done.In 1948, Miguel Trujillo Sr fought the case in New Mexico. He was a Isleta Pueblo tribal member. He attended the Albuquerque Indian School and then the Haskell Institute in Lawrence, Kan. That is where Trujillo met his wife, Ruchanda Paisano. He eventually earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of New Mexico. He had been in the Marines in WWII. He was back in New Mexico getting his master’s degree from the University of New Mexico. He and his wife also taught at the Bureau of Indian Affairs Laguna Pueblo Day School.The state’s constitution barred American Indians living on reservations from participating in elections. It prohibited from voting “idiots, insane persons, persons convicted of felonious or infamous crime unless restored to political rights, and Indians not taxed.” That had been condemned by the President’s Committee on Civil Rights in 1947. That line in the constitution was written before American Indians were granted citizenship, but they were paying taxes to the state and federal government like other citizens.This is Trujillo and his daughter.Both his son and daughter, Josephine Waconda (in photo), went into medicine. Dr. Michael Trujillo was director of the Indian Health Service under President Bill Clinton.Felix Cohen, a prominent Indian civil rights lawyer took the case. He was Jewish, from New York, and had written The Handbook of Federal Indian Law in 1941. The Court found that New Mexico had discriminated against Indians by denying them the vote, especially since they paid all state and federal taxes except for private property taxes on the reservations.The federal judge said:“We all know that these New Mexico Indians have responded to the needs of the country in time of war. Why should they be deprived of their rights to vote now because they are favored by the federal government in exempting their lands from taxation.”In that same year, in Arizona a lawsuit by another veteran, Frank Harrison and Harry Austin, both Mohave-Apache at the Fort McDowell Indian Reservation, resulted in Indians being able to vote for the first time in that state. (Harrison and Austin v. Laveen). Cohen was also on that case. Harrison and Austin had tried to register to vote in Maricopa County, Arizona, and been denied by the county recorder, Roger Laveen. The Felix Cohen was also one of the attorneys in this landmark case. The National Congress of American Indians, the Department of Justice, and the Department of the Interior also filed amicus curiae (friends of the court) briefs in these cases. In Harrison v. Laveen the Arizona Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs that their Arizona and United States constitutional rights had been violated. With this decision, Indians were granted the right to vote in the state of Arizona. Harrison v. LaveenNew Mexico and Utah had said Native people weren’t residents of the state, making them ineligible to vote. The laws remained on the books until 1957 in Utah and 1962 in New Mexico. However Native people were voting in New Mexico after 1948. Here are people registering to vote after the Trujillo decision on 27th of Sept 1948.Utah denied Indians the vote because Indians on reservations were not actually residents of Utah but were residents of their own nations. Indians were thus considered non-residents and hence not eligible to vote. In 1957, the Utah state legislature finally repealed the legislation that prevented Indians living on reservations from voting. It did so only after being forced by a federal judge.New Mexico in 1962, the last state to enfranchise Native Americans. It took five years after that to change the state’s constitution.Today, New Mexico has the highest registration rate for American Indians in the country. According to the National Congress of American Indians, Native Americans 77 percent of potential Native voters are registered to vote, compared to 73 percent for African Americans and 70 percent of white voters, 78 percent Hispanic and 62 percent for Asian Americans.Even with the lawful right to vote in every state, Native Americans suffered from the same mechanisms and strategies, such as poll taxes, literacy tests, fraud and intimidation, that kept African Americans from exercising that right.In 1965, with passage of the Voting Rights Act and subsequent legislation in 1970, 1975, and 1982, voting protections were reaffirmed and strengthened. However, there has needed to be many law cases brought to tr to force states to stop Native people from voting. There have repeatedly been voting rights abuses against Native Americans in Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, and other states with significant Native American populations. At least 70 cases have needed to be brought.The Native American Voting Rights Coalition (NAVRC) was formed in 2015 to address this. It is made up of the Native American Rights Fund (NARF); National Congress of American Indians (NCAI); American Civil Liberties Union, Voting Rights Project (ACLU); Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights (LCCR); Fair Elections Center; Western Native Voice; and Four Directions. Home - Native American Voting Rights CoalitionSome recent cases are:October 30, 2018, Spirit Lake Tribe and six individual plaintiffs sued to ensure that eligible Native American voters residing on reservations in North Dakota will be able to cast a ballot in the 2018 midterm elections and in all future elections.On December 13, 2017, the Native American Rights Fund again brought action against the state of North Dakota seeking to overturn North Dakota’s newest discriminatory voter ID law.For decades San Juan County in Utah has prevented Native American representation, voting, and presence on juries. It is an area of 7,933 sq mi. That is bigger than Delaware or Connecticut or NJ. County clerks kept Native candidates off the ballot, refused to register Native voters, and held written elections in English, disenfranchising those who were illiterate or didn’t speak the English well. In the mid-1980s, the U.S. Department of Justice sued San Juan County for violating the Voting Rights Act. Then, the county drew its lines still violated the Voting Rights Act, because it packed minority voters into a single district while spreading the white vote over multiple districts. That meant Native voters could only elect one representative. Navajos were kept off the school board too. A U.S. Department of Justice official who later reviewed disparities in course offerings between the county’s white and Native schools said in 1997 that he “hadn’t seen anything so bad since the ’60s in the South.”Even though Native Americans are the majority in the in the 14,750-person county, the county commissioner and school board district lines were gerrymandered to give white Mormon voters disproportionate power for more than three decades. Under both the Voting Rights Act and Utah state law, counties must redraw voting districts at least every 10 years to ensure that the population is spread evenly across districts. But San Juan County hadn’t redrawn its voting districts since 1986. Actions in the last few years changed that. The 2018 election ended that. Navajo are now the majority on the county commission. Grayeyes wins county seat in historic electionHere is one of the Navajo winners, Kenneth Maryboy.In late 2018, Senator Udall introduced the Native American Voting Rights Act of 2018. It has a poor chance of passing right now because of Republican obstruction and racism. Text - S.3543 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Native American Voting Rights Act of 2018“In 1948 – 70 years ago – my grandfather, Levi Udall, served as Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court where he authored the opinion extending the right to vote to Native Americans then living on-reservation. My grandfather wrote, ‘To deny the right to vote… is to do violence to the principles of freedom and equality.’ I wholeheartedly agree. But today, 70 years later, state and local jurisdictions continue to erect insidious new barriers to the ballot box for Native Americans, from the elimination of polling and registration locations to the passage of voter ID laws intentionally designed to prevent Native Americans from voting. These undemocratic barriers have blocked too many Native voters across New Mexico and Indian Country from exercising their franchise.”