Bipartisan lawmakers, Wabanaki leaders propose next change to Settlement Act
Passamaquoddy Tribal Rep. Aaron Dana testifies in support of prohibiting eminent domain on tribal lands before the Judiciary Committee on April 4. (Emma Davis/ Maine Morning Star)
A bipartisan group of lawmakers presented legislation on Friday to prevent the state from being able to seize Wabanki land for public use without consultation.
For the past several Legislative sessions, leaders of the Wabanaki Nations have worked with lawmakers to try to overhaul the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act that has resulted in the tribes being treated more akin to municipalities than sovereign nations.
So far, sweeping change has failed due to opposition from Gov. Janet Mills, but the executive, lawmakers and Wabanaki leaders have successfully made some targeted adjustments, including expanding tribal authority to prosecute crimes last year.
LD 958 represents the next area of focus, although an omnibus bill is still expected to be considered during the second regular session of the Legislature next year.
Sponsored by House Minority leader Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor) and bipartisan co-sponsors, LD 958 would amend the Settlement Act and the 2023 Mi'kmaq Nation Restoration Act — as the Mi'kmaq Nation hadn't been included in the earlier act — to prohibit eminent domain, a protection already afforded to almost all other federally recognized tribes.
'Much of our land contains irreplaceable cultural, spiritual and ecological resources,' said Passamaquoddy Tribal Rep. Aaron Dana, a co-sponsor of the bill who sits on the Judiciary Committee. 'This bill ensures those places are safeguarded and are not subject to destruction or appropriation. Too often in our history, our tribal lands have been taken, divided and exploited under the guise of progress.'
The U.S. government can seize private property for public use, known as eminent domain, however that authority is restricted by the Fifth Amendment U.S. Constitution, which requires just compensation for land taken, as well as some federal laws.
Rep. Rachel Henderson (R-Rumford), a co-sponsor who sits on the Judiciary Committee, questioned whether the bill is in conflict with the Constitution. It is not, Faulkingham, tribal leaders and attorneys explained, because the Constitution outlines when eminent domain can be exercised but not that it can't be further restricted.
'There's nothing in the Fifth Amendment that prohibits a state from enacting laws that says we won't do that,' Faulkingham said.
LD 958 applies to land protected under federal law — trust and reservation land — but fee lands — private property for which the owner owns the title — would still be subject to state power of eminent domain. A constitutional amendment allows states to condemn individually owned plots within tribal reservations.
Maine has seized Wabanaki land from the start of their intertwined histories, as the state territory today had first been inhabited by the Wabanaki people.
One example of eminent domain those who testified in favor of the bill cited occurred in 1925, when Maine took land from the Passamaquoddy Tribe's Reservation at Sipayik to build Route 190 without tribal input.
In 1912, the state helped a paper company pursue building a dam in Grand Falls, which flooded 6,000 acres of Passamoody land and harmed native fish, said William Nicholas, chief of the Passamoquoddy Tribe at Indian Township.
'When we talk about the Constitution of the United States and how it affects all of us, the Passamoquoddy Tribe is still waiting for our compensation for 113 years,' Nichols said, referring to the impact of the dam.
Since the 1980 Act, Nichols said he views the state's efforts to build an offshore wind port as an example of attempted eminent domain. Though the effort has been effectively put on hold, Nichols criticized the state for not consulting the tribes when pursuing a 'possible invasion of our ancestral waters.'
Maulian Bryant, executive director of the Wabanaki Alliance, a nonprofit created in 2020 to advocate for the recognition of the Wabanaki Nations' inherent sovereignty, said the bill encourages collaboration, not conflict.
'If a project can truly benefit the public, the State and the Tribes, the state should work with tribal leaders to find a solution,' Bryant said. 'This legislation is a protective measure to guarantee consultation and mutual agreement before any action is taken on tribal lands.'
There is one component of the bill Wabanki leaders are advocating to amend.
The bill stipulates how the money received for seized land has to be reinvested and how the Tribes can reacquire land with such proceeds, which Passamaquoddy attorney Corey Hinton criticized as a paternalistic process.
'It puts an unnecessary restriction on a federal process,' Hinton said.
Tribal attorneys will be presenting proposed changes to the committee before the work session on Wednesday. The change will likely be to strike the language and simply point to the federal takings process.
Prohibiting eminent domain has unique bipartisan support, as some of the Republican co-sponsors of the bill previously voted against omnibus sovereignty legislation and piecemeal changes considered in past sessions.
Faulkingham described the bill as consistent with his political ideology, describing it as a measure to protect private property rights.
'I don't believe in the process of eminent domain against anybody, anywhere,' Faulkingham said.
Other co-sponsors include Republican Sen. Marianne Moore of Washington, Democratic Rep. James Dill of Old Town and Republican Reps. Jennifer Poirier of Skowhegan, Katrina Smith of Palermo, Elizabeth Caruso of Caratunk and Arthur Kevin Mingo of Calais.
Other piecemeal changes to the Settlement Act so far include establishing a formal Tribal-State collaboration process for policy making, allowed the Tribes to generate sales tax revenue from sales on their own lands — except for the Mi'kmaq Nation, though lawmakers are hoping to expand that ability to them with a bill this session — and permitting the Tribes to handle sports betting.
Another bill this session supported by Wabanaki leaders would allow the Tribes to expand gambling options through internet gaming, with 16% of revenue generated going back to the state to fund services such as substance use disorder and gambling addiction programs. But casinos in Maine are opposed, arguing such a change would allow the Wabanaki Nations to monopolize the industry.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

an hour ago
'These are Americans': Huntington Park mayor and veteran delivers plea to Marines deployed to protests
As anti-immigration raid protests continue for the sixth day in Los Angeles, a group of 30 regional mayors from Southern California came together to stand in support and solidarity with those peacefully protesting. During a press conference led by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass on Wednesday, Huntington Park Mayor Arturo Flores, who is a Marine veteran, spoke directly to servicemembers deployed to the protests by President Donald Trump's administration. His comments come as over 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines are set to be stationed in Los Angeles, despite fervent objections from some local leaders. Trump said deployment is necessary to "address the lawlessness" and has said that Los Angeles would be "burning to the ground" if he hadn't sent the servicemembers in. "I have a message for those Marines," Flores began, speaking of the oath that he and all servicemembers take to "defend the Constitution and to defend this country." "That oath was to the American people. It was not to a dictator, it was not to a tyrant, it was not to a president -- it was to the American people," Flores said. "The people that are here in these communities, in the city of LA and the cities that you'll hear from, are Americans, whether they have a document or they don't," Flores added. The protests -- which began Friday in Paramount, California, and have spread to nearby downtown Los Angeles -- were in part sparked by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid carried out in front of a local Home Depot in Huntington Park and in other locations in the area. Since Friday, there have been over 300 people detained by ICE in Los Angeles, according to the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, a local immigrant rights organization. On Tuesday, the official ICE account on X shared a photo of National Guardsmen on the scene of a detention being carried out by an ICE agent with the caption: "Photos from today's ICE Los Angeles immigration enforcement operation." Speaking of the "militarization of immigration enforcement," Flores said it "has no place in our neighborhoods, and the deployment of Marines on U.S. soil is an alarming escalation that undermines the values of democracy." "We stand against these fear-based tactics that target immigrant communities and erode public trust," he said, calling the Trump administration's actions to deploy over 4,000 servicemembers "political theater that is rooted in fear."


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Hegseth wavers on Russia sanctions, says US should not use ‘every tool' to end Ukraine invasion
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth resisted senators' efforts to secure his support for a bipartisan bill that would sanction Russia for its war on Ukraine, telling an Appropriations subcommittee Wednesday that the US should not use 'every tool at our disposal' to pressure Moscow to stop its assault. Asked by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) whether Washington 'should use every tool it has at its disposal, including additional sanctions, to pressure Russia to come to the table to negotiate a just and lasting peace for the war in Ukraine,' Hegseth demurred. 'Senator, every tool at our disposal? No,' he said. 'We have a lot of tools in a lot of places.' 'We should be pursuing a cease-fire and a negotiated resolution to the war in Ukraine at any cost,' Coons responded. ''Peace through strength' means actually using our strength, continuing to support Ukraine, and securing a lasting peace. [Vladimir] Putin will only stop when we stop him.' 4 Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testified Wednesday at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. REUTERS Prior to questioning Hegseth, Coons had talked up Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal's (D-Conn.) pending bill to further sanction Russia for its continued resistance to peace in Ukraine. The legislation, backed by 80 senators, would impose sanctions on key Russian officials and economic sectors — and, critically, penalize foreign nations that do business with Moscow. Graham later followed up, urging Hegseth and the administration 'to use that tool to get the attention of China and India.' 'China buys — and India buys — 70% of Russia's oil … If they stop buying cheap Russian oil tomorrow, would that grind Putin's war machine to a halt?' Graham asked, later adding: 'We have an ability, through legislation, to get China and India's attention [and say] that if you keep buying cheap Russian oil to empower Putin to kill Ukrainian children, you're going to lose access to our markets. 'We're not going to evict every Russian from Ukraine, I'm a practical guy,' Graham added. 'But we got to end this war so we don't entice China to take Taiwan, and we don't encourage Iran to think we're just all talk [about] stopping their nuclear ambitions.' 4 Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) questions Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth during a Senate Committee on Appropriations subcommittee hearing to examine proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 2026 for the Department of Defense. AP On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the White House was quietly pushing Graham to water down the bill by allowing waivers to exempt certain people and entities from sanctions and to 'remove the mandatory nature' of the legislation. A White House official told the outlet that the Constitution 'vests the president with the authority to conduct diplomacy with foreign nations.' 'Any sanction package must provide complete flexibility for the president to continue to pursue his desired foreign policy,' they added. Hegseth did admit Wednesday that Russia is the 'aggressor' in Ukraine and that Chinese President Xi Jinping wants Moscow to 'win' the conflict. However, the secretary declined to answer Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) question about 'which side' he wanted to win the war. 'As we've said time and time again, this president is committed to peace in that conflict,' Hegseth said. 'Ultimately, peace serves our national interests, and we think the interests of both parties, even if that outcome will not be preferable to many in this room and many in our country.' 4 Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (R) greets Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine before testifying during a hearing with the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 11. Getty Images McConnell pushed further, noting that the Russians 'don't seem to be too interested' in peace talks. The former Senate GOP leader also alleged that NATO partners increasing their defense spending at Trump's behest are now wondering 'whether we're in the midst of brokering what appears to be allowing the Russians to define victory.' 'I think victory is defined by the people that have to live there, the Ukrainians,' he said. 'And I don't think they're going to ever conclude that victory means basically adopting the Russian views on all this. ' Hegseth responded that 'no one's adopting views,' but added that the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act does not include funding of weapons for Ukraine because 'the budget reflects the reality that Europe needs to step up more for the defense of its own continent, and President Trump deserves the credit for that.' 4 Ranking member Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) speaks with subcommittee Chairman Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) during a hearing with the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 11, 2025. Getty Images McConnell agreed, noting that he had 'the same complaints' about the Biden administration not pushing hard enough for Europe to fund Ukraine's defense. Still, the Kentuckian insisted that by not standing foursquare behind the Kyiv government, 'it seems to me pretty obvious that America's reputation is on the line.' 'Will we defend democratic allies against authoritarian aggressors?' McConnell asked. 'That's the international concern that I have about this, and I think a number of my fellow members share that view.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?
This coverage is made possible through Votebeat, a nonpartisan news organization covering local election administration and voting access. Sign up for Votebeat Texas' free newsletters here. Republicans representing Texas in Congress are considering this week whether to push their state Legislature to take the unusual step of redrawing district lines to shore up the GOP's advantage in the U.S. House. But the contours of the plan, including whether Gov. Greg Abbott would call a special session of the Legislature to redraw the maps, remain largely uncertain. The idea is being driven by President Donald Trump's political advisers, who want to draw up new maps that would give Republicans a better chance to flip seats currently held by Democrats, according to two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. That proposal, which would involve shifting GOP voters from safely red districts into neighboring blue ones, is aimed at safeguarding Republicans' thin majority in Congress, where they control the lower chamber, 220-212. The redistricting proposal, and the Trump team's role in pushing it, was first reported by The New York Times Monday. Without a Republican majority in Congress, Trump's legislative agenda would likely stall, and the president could face investigations from newly empowered Democratic committee chairs intent on scrutinizing the White House. Here's what we know about the plan so far: On Capitol Hill, members of the Texas GOP delegation huddled Monday night to discuss the prospect of reshaping their districts. Most of the 25-member group expressed reluctance about the idea, citing concerns about jeopardizing their districts in next year's midterms if the new maps overextended the GOP's advantage, according to the two GOP aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private deliberations. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Lubbock, was skeptical of the idea. 'We just recently worked on the new maps,' Arrington told The Texas Tribune. To reopen the process, he said, 'there'd have to be a significant benefit to our state.' The delegation has yet to be presented with mockups of new maps, two aides said. Each state's political maps must be redrawn once a decade, after each round of the U.S. census, to account for population growth and ensure every congressional and legislative district has roughly the same number of people. Texas lawmakers last overhauled their district lines in 2021. There's no federal law that prohibits states from redrawing district maps midcycle, said Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's civil rights division. Laws around the timing to redraw congressional and state district maps vary by state. In Texas, the state constitution doesn't specify timing, so the redrawing of maps is left to the discretion of the governor and the Legislature. Lawmakers gaveled out of their 140-day regular session last week, meaning they would need to be called back for a special session to change the state's political maps. Abbott has the sole authority to order overtime sessions and decide what lawmakers are allowed to consider. A trial is underway in El Paso in a long-running challenge to the state legislative and congressional district maps Texas drew after the 2020 U.S. Census. If Texas redraws its congressional maps, state officials would then ask the court to toss the claims challenging those districts 'that no longer exist,' Levitt said. The portion of the case over the state legislative district maps would continue. If the judge agrees, then both parties would have to file new legal claims for the updated maps. It isn't clear how much maps could change, but voters could find themselves in new districts, and Levitt said redrawing the lines in the middle of the redistricting cycle is a bad idea. 'If the people of Texas think that their representatives have done a bad job, then when the [district] lines change, they're not voting on those representatives anymore,' Levitt said. 'New people are voting on those representatives.' The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Democrats' national arm for contesting state GOP mapmaking, said the proposal to expand Republicans' stronghold in Texas was 'yet another example of Trump trying to suppress votes in order to hold onto power.' 'Texas's congressional map is already being sued for violating the Voting Rights Act because it diminishes the voting power of the state's fast-growing Latino population,' John Bisognano, president of the NDRC said. 'To draw an even more extreme gerrymander would only assure that the barrage of legal challenges against Texas will continue.' When Republicans in charge of the Legislature redrew the district lines after the 2020 census, they focused on reinforcing their political support in districts already controlled by the GOP. This redistricting proposal would likely take a different approach. As things stand, Republicans hold 25 of the state's 38 congressional seats. Democrats hold 12 seats and are expected to regain control of Texas' one vacant seat in a special election this fall. Most of Texas' GOP-controlled districts lean heavily Republican: In last year's election, 24 of those 25 seats were carried by a Republican victor who received at least 60% of the vote or ran unopposed. The exception was U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz, R-Edinburg, who captured 57% of the vote and won by a comfortable 14-point margin. With little competition to speak of, The Times reported, Trump's political advisers believe at least some of those districts could bear the loss of GOP voters who would be reshuffled into neighboring, Democratic-held districts — giving Republican hopefuls a better chance to flip those seats from blue to red. The party in control of the White House frequently loses seats during midterm cycles, and Trump's team is likely looking to offset potential GOP losses in other states and improve the odds of holding on to a narrow House majority. Incumbent Republicans, though, don't love the idea of sacrificing a comfortable race in a safe district for the possibility of picking up a few seats, according to GOP aides. In 2003, after Texas Republicans initially left it up to the courts to draw new lines following the 2000 census, then-U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Sugar Land Republican, embarked instead on a bold course of action to consolidate GOP power in the state. He, along with his Republican allies, redrew the lines as the opening salvo to a multistate redistricting plan aimed at accumulating power for his party in states across the country. Enraged by the power play, Democrats fled the state, depriving the Texas House of the quorum it needed to function. The rebels eventually relented under threat of arrest, a rare power in the Texas Constitution used to compel absent members back to return to Austin when the Legislature is in session. The lines were then redrawn, cementing the GOP majority the delegation has enjoyed in Washington for the past two decades. However, what's at play this time is different than in the early 2000s, when Republicans had a newfound majority in the Legislature and had a number of vulnerable Democratic incumbents they could pick off. Now, Republicans have been entrenched in the majority for decades and will have to answer the question of whether there's really more to gain, said Kareem Crayton, the vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice's Washington office. 'That's the tradeoff. You can do that too much so that you actually make them so competitive that the other side wins,' Crayton said. 'That's always a danger.' Texas Republicans are planning to reconvene Thursday to continue discussing the plan, according to Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Irving, and Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Houston, who said they will attend the meeting. Members of Trump's political team are also expected to attend, according to Hunt and two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. She's based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@ Disclosure: New York Times has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.