Latest news with #WabanakiNations
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legislature considers offering Wabanaki Nations more gambling revenue
Emma DavisMaine Morning Star Among the many federal laws that do not apply to the Wabanaki Nations due to a land settlement act is one that offers federally recognized tribes the right to exclusively regulate and take in revenue from gambling on tribal lands. Last month, the majority of the Maine Legislature's Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee voted in favor of a bill, LD 1164, that would give the Wabanaki Nations exclusive rights to operate internet gaming in Maine, though Wabanaki leaders say there is not much appetite from the governor for that change and the privately owned casinos are opposed, which could hamper that bill's chance of success. On Wednesday, the committee heard testimony on another proposal, LD 1851, which, rather than altering the structure of who controls gaming, seeks to provide equality among the Wabanaki Nations in how much revenue they are provided from slot machine income in the state. 'One of the primary purposes of this bill is parity,' said Zeke Crofton-Macdonald, Tribal Ambassador for the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians. The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 codified that tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming on their lands, unless the state in which it operates prohibits such gaming under its criminal laws. However, the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act has made it so the Wabanaki Nations are treated more akin to municipalities than independent nations, one way being that the Tribes are unable to benefit from any federal law passed after 1980, unless they are specifically mentioned in the law. In 2022, the Maine Legislature amended the Settlement Act to permit the Tribes to handle sports betting, so the legislation being considered this session would build off of that earlier expansion. Sponsored by Rep. Marc Malon (D-Biddeford) and co-sponsored by Sen. Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Cumberland), LD 1851 would increase the total net slot machine income to be collected and distributed by a casino from 39% to 46%, which would only impact Hollywood Casino, Hotel and Raceway in Bangor, as Oxford Casino is currently at that percentage. It would then provide 7% of that income to the tribal governments of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians and the Mi'kmaq Nation. 'It is a matter of fairness and brings us a small step closer toward a more just relationship with the sovereign Indigenous nations whose land we live on,' Malon said. The bill would not change the arrangement that is currently in place between the Oxford Casino and the other two tribes of the Wabanaki Nations — the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation. Oxford Casino pays 4% of its slot revenue to those two tribes, which Penobscot Chief Kirk Francis said was a deal struck when the casino first opened as a way for the Tribes to benefit without pursuing competing gaming, an agreement he said has been helpful for economic development. 'We don't want to take from the other tribes,' Chief of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Clarissa Sabattis said, regarding the reasoning as to why the bill doesn't pull from the same pot of revenue as the other two tribes. While the percentages are different, they equate to roughly the same revenue, around $3.5 million. The bill would also bring parity among the casinos, as Mi'kmaq Nation Chief Edward Peter Paul put it, because it would raise the slot machine income provided by both casinos to the same percentage. However, Chris Jackson, a partner in the lobby firm Mitchell Tardy Jackson in Augusta who spoke on behalf of his client Hollywood Casino, argued that change would be harmful to the casino financially because it would alter its tax rate. 'As long as our effective tax rate stays the same,' Jackson said, 'we are open to suggestions.' While both bills related to gaming revenue could be passed, Sabattis told Maine Morning Star she anticipates the slot revenue bill will not be as necessary should the Tribes gain control of internet gaming, though she sees that path as the less likely outcome. Testimony from the casinos against the online gaming bill also signal that. Steve Silver, chair of the Maine Gambling Control Board, argued that should that bill pass, Oxford Casino should no longer be required to pay slot revenue to the tribes. Another bill the committee heard on Wednesday, LD 1838, would authorize electronic wagering terminals to conduct electronic beano by federally recognized tribes, among some other changes, which Sabattis and Francis testified in support of. Overall, Wabanaki leaders argue their inability to access the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and other restrictions under the Settlement Act, has caused them to lose out on revenue and therefore hurt their ability to provide services to their citizens. This is supported by a 2022 report by a team of researchers from the Harvard Kennedy School that the comparatively lower economic growth the Wabanaki Nations have seen compared to other federally recognized tribes and the average Mainer is likely the result of the Settlement Act. 'All of our tribes have significant unmet needs and underfunded programs,' Sabattis told the committee, noting that her tribe would put revenue provided through this bill toward its wellness court, in turn reducing strain for social services on the state and towns. The Wabanaki Alliance, a nonprofit created in 2020 to advocate for the recognition of the Wabanaki Nations' inherent sovereignty, hasn't taken a position on LD 1851, according to executive director Maulian Bryant.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Maine Legislature rejects state recognition process following tribes' request
Emma DavisMaine Morning Star The Legislature on Tuesday rejected two bills related to the state recognition of tribes, a longstanding effort that Wabanaki leaders argue would have undermined their continued push for the sovereignty afforded to other federally recognized tribes. The Wabanaki Nations — the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, Mi'kmaq Nation, Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation — have federal recognition, which, in theory, gives them the right to self-govern and makes them entitled to certain benefits and federal protections. However, the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act has left the Wabanaki Nations with footing more akin to municipalities than independent nations. Overhauling that act is the fight for sovereignty Wabanaki leaders and a growing number of bipartisan lawmakers have been pushing for years, though so far have only seen success with piecemeal change. The Wabanaki Nations do not have state recognition, though that's not as abnormal. Some states have adopted state recognition processes, affording non-federally recognized tribes a path to official acknowledgement but in a way that doesn't afford the same sovereignty or access to resources. That's the type of process Rep. Jennifer Poirier (R-Skowhegan) tried to establish in Maine, though lawmakers rejected it, arguing the state recognition process would subvert the federal process, which is also comparatively a more rigorous one. 'This feels like a step backwards,' Wabanaki Alliance Executive Director Maulian Bryant told Maine Morning Star about the state recognition attempt. 'We feel strongly about the validity of the federal process, and going through that. We don't want to complicate an already complicated situation that's been going on for over 40 years now while we're trying to make progress.' Poirier's bill, LD 813, would have established a commission appointed by the governor to review applications for state recognition. The House voted 82-57 against this measure on Tuesday and the Senate rejected it without a roll call vote or discussion on Wednesday. On the floor on Tuesday, Rep. Adam Lee (D-Auburn) pointed to what's happened with Vermont's state recognition process as a reason for Maine to not establish its own. After a Canadian tribe asserted groups afforded state recognition by Vermont are not Indigenous and are instead appropriating their identity and culture, Vermont is now considering a task force to reconsider past tribal recognition decisions by the state. Poirier has said she'd hoped LD 813 would be unnecessary because of another bill she proposed, LD 812, which sought to provide state recognition for a group called the Kineo St. John Tribe. That measure would afford such recognition without the processes detailed by the former bill. The House rejected the bill without a roll call vote on Tuesday and the Senate followed suit on Wednesday. This group, formerly under the name the Kineo Band of Malecite, another spelling for Maliseet, has pushed for this recognition for more than a decade but legislative attempts have so far failed.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Which issues will legislators push off until next year?
Members of the Maine House of Representatives during the first session of 2024 in the State House in Augusta. (Jim Neuger/ Maine Morning Star) As the Maine Legislature approaches its anticipated last month of work, lawmakers are deciding which issues to defer until next year. Maine has a two-year legislative session, so it is routine for several bills to be carried over into the second regular session to afford lawmakers more time to deliberate, amend proposals and negotiate. Carry-over requests from committees are due to the presiding officers on Friday, according to a memo the Legislature's presiding officers sent committee chairs on April 29, though realistically all deadlines are moving targets until the end of the first regular session. The presiding officers have the final say on what will be carried over. The total number of bills committees can request to hold should not exceed 5% of their anticipated overall bill load, according to an earlier April 9 memo that advised chairs to begin identifying bills they'd like to be carried over. For example, for the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee, that 5% amounted to an estimated six bills as of Monday. That number is higher for the Judiciary Committee, about 11 bills out of the 216 total it had as of Tuesday morning. More bills were referred to committees during session on Tuesday and will continue to be throughout the week, so these numbers are not final. As committees decide which bills to request to carry over, votes already taken give a sense of some of the issues that will likely not be decided until 2026. Lawmakers on the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee on Monday decided they need more time to contemplate a proposal, LD 1851, to create parity between the Wabanaki Nations in how much revenue they get from the state's slot machine income. While legislators said they agreed with the spirit of the bill, they did not support the means it proposed to do so, which would involve a tax increase for Hollywood Casino in Bangor. 'I also have really enjoyed the work that we've been doing in the past few years, in regards to tribal gaming and trying to create equity there,' said co-chair Laura Supica (D-Bangor). 'So, I would ask the committee to consider carrying this over.' The committee voted unanimously to do so on Monday with four members absent, though the chairs said they will reevaluate all of its proposed carry over bills as the week goes on to make a holistic plan for its recommendations. In the Environment and Natural Resources Committee on Monday, Sen. Rick Bennett (R-Oxford) requested the committee carry over one of his bills, LD 754, explaining that it had drafting errors and needed additional work. His hope with the bill is to complement other legislation that the committee endorsed this session to address lithium ion battery waste, especially from electronic smoking devices, he said. However, Bennett thinks the work needed on the bill cannot be done in the limited time remaining for committee work. The Judiciary Committee has voted to carry over one bill so far, LD 1788, which would prohibit an agency or official from charging a fee to cover the actual cost of searching for, retrieving and compiling a noncommercial request of a public record for the first two hours of staff time. Co-chair Sen. Anne Carney (D-Cumberland) suggested on May 6 that the bill be carried over and the bill sponsor, Rep. Rachel Henderson (R-Rumford), agreed. The committee followed suit with a unanimous vote among those present, with four members absent. While both Carney and Henderson noted that substantial work has been put into the bill so far, they said expertise from groups such as the Right to Know Advisory Committee is needed to work through outstanding logistics. 'I'm still looking at two pages worth of issues to consider,' Henderson said. 'There are legitimate questions.' The Judiciary Committee will also be sending a letter to the Right to Know Advisory Committee asking them to take up the matter for consideration and to invite Henderson to present on it before the Legislature returns for the second regular session in 2026. Committees are racing to wrap up their work as the bulk of the action shifts to the chambers of the House of Representatives and Senate, which are starting to have lengthier sessions with floor votes. Debate on the two-year budget is also expected to pick back up soon as the Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee has been meeting every day to cast votes on what to include in the plan. At the end of March, Democrats pushed through a two-year budget that continued government spending at the same level but also included additional funding to address emergency needs. The majority did so without GOP support after Senate Republicans refused to support an earlier change package for the current fiscal year to address the MaineCare funding deficit, and some other urgent needs, unless it included structural reform to the healthcare program. That plan did not include any policy changes to address the sizable budget deficit the state faces over the next biennium. Gov. Janet Mills' proposals to close that gap — tax increases and program cuts — as well as the requests from the public and lawmakers are being considered in this next iteration of the budget plan. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legislature considers paths to afford Wabanki Nations more revenue from gambling
Chief of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Clarissa Sabattis testifies in favor of a bill to provide parity in gaming revenue among the Wabanaki Nations on May 7, 2025. (By Emma Davis/ Maine Morning Star) Among the many federal laws that do not apply to the Wabanaki Nations due to a land settlement act is one that offers federally recognized tribes the right to exclusively regulate and take in revenue from gambling on tribal lands. Last month, the majority of the Maine Legislature's Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee voted in favor of a bill, LD 1164, that would give the Wabanaki Nations exclusive rights to operate internet gaming in Maine, though Wabanaki leaders say there is not much appetite from the governor for that change and the privately owned casinos are opposed, which could hamper that bill's chance of success. On Wednesday, the committee heard testimony on another proposal, LD 1851, which, rather than altering the structure of who controls gaming, seeks to provide equality among the Wabanaki Nations in how much revenue they are provided from slot machine income in the state. 'One of the primary purposes of this bill is parity,' said Zeke Crofton-Macdonald, Tribal Ambassador for the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians. The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 codified that tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming on their lands, unless the state in which it operates prohibits such gaming under its criminal laws. However, the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act has made it so the Wabanaki Nations are treated more akin to municipalities than independent nations, one way being that the Tribes are unable to benefit from any federal law passed after 1980, unless they are specifically mentioned in the law. In 2022, the Maine Legislature amended the Settlement Act to permit the Tribes to handle sports betting, so the legislation being considered this session would build off of that earlier expansion. Sponsored by Rep. Marc Malon (D-Biddeford) and co-sponsored by Sen. Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Cumberland), LD 1851 would increase the total net slot machine income to be collected and distributed by a casino from 39% to 46%, which would only impact Hollywood Casino, Hotel and Raceway in Bangor, as Oxford Casino is currently at that percentage. It would then provide 7% of that income to the tribal governments of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians and the Mi'kmaq Nation. 'It is a matter of fairness and brings us a small step closer toward a more just relationship with the sovereign Indigenous nations whose land we live on,' Malon said. The bill would not change the arrangement that is currently in place between the Oxford Casino and the other two tribes of the Wabanaki Nations — the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation. Oxford Casino pays 4% of its slot revenue to those two tribes, which Penobscot Chief Kirk Francis said was a deal struck when the casino first opened as a way for the Tribes to benefit without pursuing competing gaming, an agreement he said has been helpful for economic development. 'We don't want to take from the other tribes,' Chief of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Clarissa Sabattis said, regarding the reasoning as to why the bill doesn't pull from the same pot of revenue as the other two tribes. While the percentages are different, they equate to roughly the same revenue, around $3.5 million. The bill would also bring parity among the casinos, as Mi'kmaq Nation Chief Edward Peter Paul put it, because it would raise the slot machine income provided by both casinos to the same percentage. However, Chris Jackson, a partner in the lobby firm Mitchell Tardy Jackson in Augusta who spoke on behalf of his client Hollywood Casino, argued that change would be harmful to the casino financially because it would alter its tax rate. 'As long as our effective tax rate stays the same,' Jackson said, 'we are open to suggestions.' While both bills related to gaming revenue could be passed, Sabattis told Maine Morning Star she anticipates the slot revenue bill will not be as necessary should the Tribes gain control of internet gaming, though she sees that path as the less likely outcome. Testimony from the casinos against the online gaming bill also signal that. Steve Silver, chair of the Maine Gambling Control Board, argued that should that bill pass, Oxford Casino should no longer be required to pay slot revenue to the tribes. Another bill the committee heard on Wednesday, LD 1838, would authorize electronic wagering terminals to conduct electronic beano by federally recognized tribes, among some other changes, which Sabattis and Francis testified in support of. Overall, Wabanaki leaders argue their inability to access the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and other restrictions under the Settlement Act, has caused them to lose out on revenue and therefore hurt their ability to provide services to their citizens. This is supported by a 2022 report by a team of researchers from the Harvard Kennedy School that the comparatively lower economic growth the Wabanki Nations have seen compared to other federally recognized tribes and the average Mainer is likely the result of the Settlement Act. 'All of our tribes have significant unmet needs and underfunded programs,' Sabattis told the committee, noting that her tribe would put revenue provided through this bill toward its wellness court, in turn reducing strain for social services on the state and towns. The Wabanaki Alliance, a nonprofit created in 2020 to advocate for the recognition of the Wabanaki Nations' inherent sovereignty, hasn't taken a position on LD 1851, according to executive director Maulian Bryant. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legislature rejects state recognition process following request of Wabanki Nations
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways Senators listen to remarks on May 7, 2025. (By Emma Davis/ Maine Morning Star) The Legislature on Tuesday rejected two bills related to the state recognition of tribes, a longstanding effort that Wabanki leaders argue would have undermined their continued push for the sovereignty afforded to other federally recognized tribes. The Wabanaki Nations — the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, Mi'kmaq Nation, Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation — have federal recognition, which, in theory, gives them the right to self-govern and makes them entitled to certain benefits and federal protections. However, the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act has left the Wabanaki Nations with footing more akin to municipalities than independent nations. Overhauling that act is the fight for sovereignty Wabanki leaders and a growing number of bipartisan lawmakers have been pushing for years, though so far have only seen success with piecemeal change. The Wabanaki Nations do not have state recognition, though that's not as abnormal. Some states have adopted state recognition processes, affording non-federally recognized tribes a path to official acknowledgement but in a way that doesn't afford the same sovereignty or access to resources. That's the type of process Rep. Jennifer Poirier (R-Skowhegan) tried to establish in Maine, though lawmakers rejected it, arguing the state recognition process would subvert the federal process, which is also comparatively a more rigorous one. Poirier's bill, LD 813, would have established a commission appointed by the governor to review applications for state recognition. The House voted 82-57 against this measure on Tuesday and the Senate rejected it without a roll call vote or discussion on Wednesday. On the floor on Tuesday, Rep. Adam Lee (D-Auburn) pointed to what's happened with Vermont's state recognition process as a reason for Maine to not establish its own. After a Canadian tribe asserted groups afforded state recognition by Vermont are not Indigenous and are instead appropriating their identity and culture, Vermont is now considering a task force to reconsider past tribal recognition decisions by the state. Poirier has said she'd hoped LD 813 would be unnecessary because of another bill she proposed, LD 812, which sought to provide state recognition for a group called the Kineo St. John Tribe. That measure would afford such recognition without the processes detailed by the former bill. The House rejected the bill without a roll call vote on Tuesday and the Senate followed suit on Wednesday. This group, formerly under the name the Kineo Band of Malecite, another spelling for Maliseet, has pushed for this recognition for more than a decade but legislative attempts have so far failed. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
