Legislators seek equal tax treatment among Wabanaki Nations
Legislators are trying again to ensure equal treatment for the Mi'kmaq Nation.
Last session, legislation to provide the Mi'kmaq Nation the same rights to sales tax revenue on its land that the other three tribes of the Wabanaki Nations were granted in 2022 received favorable committee and floor votes, but got caught up in end-of-session procedural fights and ultimately died without final action when lawmakers adjourned.
That measure was back before the Taxation Committee on Wednesday with the support of Gov. Janet Mills' administration.
'This bill addresses a clear gap in state tax law,' said bill sponsor Sen. Rachel Talbot Ross (Democrat from Cumberland).In 2022, the Legislature revised tax laws for the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation to afford them many of the same tax rules that apply to tribal nations throughout the country. This law also formalized regular dialogue practices between the Wabanaki Nations and the state and established a regulatory framework for sports betting.
The law ended up looking drastically different than the legislation had first been proposed by Talbot Ross.
Talbot Ross' bill originally sought to amend aspects of the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, which has left the Wabanaki Nations with authority more akin to municipalities than sovereign nations, putting them on different footing than all other federally recognized tribes. However, the bill was changed as a result of negotiations between three of the tribes and the governor's office and overhauling the Settlement Act remains an ongoing battle.
The Mi'kmaq Nation was not referred to in the Settlement Act and only received federal recognition later in 1991. Last session, the Legislature passed a law known as The Mi'kmaq Nation Restoration Act that put the Tribe on par with the rest of the Wabanaki Nations.
Talbot Ross' bill this session, LD 982, co-sponsored by Rep. Daniel Sayre (D-Kennebunk), builds upon this previous work and mirrors the earlier attempt to seek parity for the Mi'kmaq Nation when it comes to tax treatment, which had been proposed by State Treasurer Joseph Perry, then representing Bangor in the Maine House
LD 982 would specifically exempt the Mi'kmaq Nation from state sales and income tax for activities occurring on tribal trust or reservation lands and allow the Tribe to generate sales tax revenues from sales on their own lands — the same rights afforded to the other Wabanaki Nations.
'Allowing the Tribe to retain this revenue will strengthen economic opportunity for its citizens and enable greater reinvestment into the surrounding communities,' Talbot Ross said.
Maulian Bryant, executive director of the Wabanaki Alliance, which was formed in 2020 to advocate for the recognition of Wabanaki sovereignty, said the group supports LD 982.
'The original bill with the taxation provisions was a very significant, important, impactful restoration of sovereignty for the tribes,' Bryant said, 'and we are very happy and hopeful at the prospect of the Mi'kmaq Nation being included in this really great act of parity.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Law journal article proves that citizen ballot questions are under attack
If you've ever suffered from that nagging feeling that the Legislature is systematically trying to undermine your right to petition something onto the ballot, you're not alone. I've had it, too. We need to start trusting that gut feeling. It turns out we weren't wrong. That's exactly what the Republican majority in the Legislature has been trying to do. It has just been proven by three authors of a South Dakota Law Review article: 'Have Recent Legislative Changes in South Dakota Made Using the Initiated Measure Process More Difficult?' It seems the answer to the question in the title of the article is yes, and how. You can find the article on the Law Review's website. Be warned: at 40-some pages, it's not an easy read. There are footnotes strewn about and readers may struggle with some of the world's ugliest charts. However it still tells a compelling tale of how, since 2017, the Republican super-majority in the Legislature has been whittling away at the rights of citizens to petition measures onto the ballot. Republicans may scoff at the article as so much whining from the left as two of the authors are well-known Democrats: activist Cory Heidelberger and former State Sen. Reynold Nesiba. While a Republican byline would have been nice for the sake of balance, there's no disputing the truth of the facts they have compiled. These bills were filed and are there for anyone to look up. Their paper gets particularly interesting when it goes about listing the Legislature's 14 worst bills designed to cut back the rights of citizens to petition an initiative onto the ballot. Those range from insisting on a larger font size on petitions to make them unwieldy, to allowing petition signers to later withdraw their names after the petition has been submitted, and a couple of attempts to raise the vote total needed for passage of the initiative beyond a simple majority. Some of these attacks on our rights were defeated at the ballot box; some were challenged in court where they fell short of being entirely constitutional. Sadly, some were enacted into law. At least now, through the work of the article's authors, the grim history of the war on ballot initiatives in South Dakota is summed up in one place. Unfortunately, while that history has been chronicled, the siege still continues. The authors go on to mention seven petition-related bills and five constitutional amendments submitted in the 2025 legislative session, 10 of which, they say, sought to curtail the rights of citizens to initiate ballot measures. When legislators want to amend the state constitution themselves, they have to convince a majority of their colleagues to send the amendment to voters. This legislative quest to get on the 2026 ballot through constitutional amendments comes from the same party that tries to curtail voter access to the petition process by claiming that voters have ballot fatigue with so many issues to decide on Election Day. This ignores the fact that in each case, more than 17,000 South Dakotans applied their signatures to petitions, a sure sign that there are plenty of people who think the ballot issue is something that should go before voters. This years-long attempt to curtail the initiative process is nothing more than a means for the Republican super-majority to solidify its power by cutting off people they don't agree with from access to the ballot. Republican efforts aren't trying to make the process better or more secure. They're just tired of beating back attempts to legalize marijuana and abortion. The irony here is that in the Statehouse, no piece of legislation is ever blocked. Sure, there may be some arm-twisting that could lead to a bill being tabled or withdrawn, but each bill is handled in the light of day. These same Republicans who are so upright and transparent with legislation are working overtime to have darkness descend on the ballot box. Their attempts to slow or stop citizen access to the ballot initiative process is a sign of the power that citizens wield. The recent law journal article has proven that this notion that our rights are under attack is more than just a gut feeling. We now have a historic record that spells out the way Republicans have been trying to take away the power of citizens to petition their government. This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Law journal article proves that citizen ballot questions are under attack
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Trump said on social media shortly after a weak jobs report showed signs of strain in the labor market. Advertisement Over time, analysts expect that the tariffs, if left in place, could be worth more than $2 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade. Economists overwhelmingly hope that doesn't happen and the United States abandons the new trade barriers. But some acknowledge that such a substantial stream of revenue could end up being hard to quit. Advertisement 'I think this is addictive,' said Joao Gomes, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are.' The Port of Baltimore on June 30, 2025. ALYSSA SCHUKAR/NYT Trump has long fantasized about replacing taxes on income with tariffs. He often refers fondly to American fiscal policy in the late 19th century, when there was no income tax and the government relied on tariffs, citing that as a model for the future. And while income and payroll taxes remain by far the most important sources of government revenue, the combination of Trump's tariffs and the latest Republican tax cut does, on the margin, move the United States away from taxing earnings and toward taxing goods. Such a shift is expected to be regressive, meaning that rich Americans will fare better than poorer Americans under the change. That's because cutting taxes on income does, in general, provide the biggest benefit to richer Americans who earn the most income. The recent Republican cut to income taxes and the social safety net is perhaps the most regressive piece of major legislation in decades. Placing new taxes on imported products, however, is expected to raise the cost of everyday goods. Lower-income Americans spend more of their earnings on those more expensive goods, meaning the tariffs amount to a larger tax increase for them compared with richer Americans. Tariffs have begun to bleed into consumer prices, with many companies saying they will have to start raising prices as a result of added costs. And analysts expect the tariffs to weigh on the performance of the economy overall, which in turn could reduce the amount of traditional income tax revenue the government collects every year. Advertisement 'Is there a better way to raise that amount of revenue? The economic answer is: Yes, there is a better way, there are more efficient ways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and a former Biden administration official. 'But it's really a political question.' Workers welded steel components together at a Thomas Built Buses plant in High Point, N.C., on July 21, 2025. TRAVIS DOVE/NYT Tedeschi said that future leaders in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, may be hesitant to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a further addition to the federal debt load, which is already raising alarms on Wall Street. And replacing the tariff revenue with another type of tax increase would require Congress to act, while the tariffs would be a legacy decision made by a previous president. 'Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place,' Tedeschi said. Some in Washington are already starting to think about how they could spend the tariff revenue. Trump recently floated the possibility of sending Americans a cash rebate for the tariffs, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., recently introduced legislation to send $600 to many Americans. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said last month of the tariffs. Democrats, once they return to power, may face a similar temptation to use the tariff revenue to fund a new social program, especially if raising taxes in Congress proves as challenging as it has in the past. As it is, Democrats have been divided over tariffs. Maintaining the status quo may be an easier political option than changing trade policy. Advertisement 'That's a hefty chunk of change,' Tyson Brody, a Democratic strategist, said of the tariffs. 'The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh, look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogram.'' Of course, the tariffs could prove unpopular, and future elected officials may want to take steps that could lower consumer prices. At the same time, the amount of revenue the tariffs generate could decline over time if companies do, in fact, end up bringing back more of their operations to the United States, reducing the number of goods that face the import tax. 'This is clearly not an efficient way to gather revenue,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal group. 'And I don't think it would be a long-term progressive priority as a way to simply collect revenue.' This article originally appeared in
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
Trade representative backs Trump's punitive approach to global tariffs
A Brazilian official told POLITICO last week that the country's legal system is entirely separate from its executive branch, and that its government could only stop the trial with the help of a sweeping amnesty law. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who prosecutors allege was to be poisoned in a coup plot agreed to by Bolsonaro, has flatly refused U.S. demands. But Trump is standing by Bolsonaro and drawing connections to his own entanglements with the U.S. legal system. 'This is nothing more, or less, than an attack on a Political Opponent — Something I know much about!' he charged on Truth Social in July. 'It happened to me, times 10, and now our Country is the 'HOTTEST' in the World! The Great People of Brazil will not stand for what they are doing to their former President.' Greer on Sunday said Trump's tariffs on Brazil had full legal backing under a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This is true, he said, even though the U.S. has long enjoyed a trade surplus with the South American country. 'The president of the United States, historically, whether it's a Democrat or Republican, they have used IEEPA to impose sanctions for all kinds of geopolitical reasons in all kinds of countries,' he told Brennan. 'Sometimes it's countrywide, sometimes it's specific to certain, you know, individuals and often foreign leaders and foreign officials. So, this is not way outside the market.'
