Wait a Minute! Kamala Harris’s Real Record on Tribal Sovereignty

Newly appointed candidate for President, Vice President Kamala Harris recently claimed, “I will always honor tribal sovereignty and respect tribal self-determination,” during a rally in Phoenix, Arizona. However, a closer look at her record as California Attorney General reveals actions that run counter to this promise, raising serious concerns about her commitment to tribal sovereignty.

Opposition to Tribal Land Rights and Sovereignty

During her tenure as California’s Attorney General, Harris’s office consistently took positions that undermined tribal land rights. Between 2011 and 2013, she sent no fewer than six letters to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) objecting to federal “fee-to-trust” applications, which are critical for tribes to regain and manage their lands. Her objections went directly against the interests of Native tribes striving to reclaim their ancestral lands and exercise self-determination.

One notable case was the Camp 4 project, where Harris opposed the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians’ efforts to place land into trust, a decision that would have allowed the tribe to build housing for its members. This move was part of a broader pattern where Harris’s office actively sought to block tribes from regaining control over their lands, a fundamental aspect of sovereignty.

Disregard for Economic Self-Determination

Harris’s actions also extended to tribal economic interests. In 2016, she supported cardroom regulations that directly harmed tribal casinos. These guidelines were seen by many as an overreach that jeopardized the economic foundation of many Native communities, which rely on gaming revenues to support their governments and provide essential services to their people.

In the Big Lagoon case, Harris’s office used the Carcieri v. Salazar decision to challenge the trust status of land held by the Big Lagoon Rancheria tribe since 1994. Had California succeeded in this case, it could have set a dangerous precedent, potentially reversing the trust status of lands for numerous tribes and further eroding their sovereignty and economic stability.

Lack of Advocacy for Indigenous Rights

Beyond land and economic issues, Harris’s office showed a troubling disregard for broader Indigenous rights. In 2014, she filed an amicus brief in a case involving the Colorado River Indian Tribes, arguing that the reservation did not include lands in California. This move could have deprived the tribe of crucial resources and rights. Such actions demonstrate a pattern of minimizing or outright opposing tribal sovereignty in legal contexts.

Moreover, Harris’s record on criminal justice reform reveals another layer of concern. Native Americans are disproportionately represented in California’s prison system, and her policies as Attorney General contributed to this overrepresentation. Despite her rhetoric, her track record shows a lack of tangible action to address these deep-seated issues affecting Native communities.

Kamala Harris’s recent promises to honor tribal sovereignty ring hollow when compared to her actions as California’s Attorney General. From opposing land-trust applications to supporting regulations that harmed tribal economies, Harris has consistently worked against the interests of Native American tribes. Her record suggests that her commitment to tribal sovereignty and self-determination is more about political convenience than genuine respect for Native rights.

As voters consider their choices in the upcoming election, it is crucial to scrutinize the actions behind the words.