When the U.S. Congress reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act recently, women's rights advocates of all makes celebrated across the nation. The act provides funding and regulations that aid in the prosecution and prevention of domestic violence crimes.
In the February reauthorization, new language extended protection to same sex-relationships, illegal immigrants and victims that fall under tribal jurisdiction. Celebration was conflicted in Alaska, however, as debate rose over a Lisa Murkowski-penned amendment to the reauthorization excluding Alaska Native tribes from one of its new benefits.
Granted, Alaska's people retained all of the previous benefits of the act, but failed to acquire some of the gains of resigning. This particular new provision gives tribal courts jurisdiction over non-Natives who commit domestic violence crimes in "Indian Country," the term given to areas of tribal jurisdiction.
In the Lower 48, this added a needed layer of protection to a group that had previously fallen through the cracks -- Native victims of non-Native abusers.
If a Native American woman on a Navajo reservation, for instance, is being abused by her non-Native partner, she previously had few options for seeking prosecution of her attacker or a protective order. The tribal court she would have had access to for such claims would have no jurisdiction over her abuser. That has now changed.
But what about in Alaska?
Tribal power in the northernmost state is not recognized the way that the sovereign power of Indian reservations in the continental U.S. is recognized.
The formation of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act provided for many rights and opportunities, but it also represented a certain relinquishing of aboriginal rights that are retained in reservations. That distinction is what has tribal leaders, women's advocates and politicians stuck in a quagmire of legalese and power conflicts.
"It hurts my heart that some Alaskans may think I do not fully support protecting Native women from violence with every fiber of my being," Murkowski wrote in a Facebook post aimed at clearing the air about the exclusion. "Point blank: the provision everyone is focused on in VAWA was never intended to address the situation for Alaska tribes."
Murkowski further replied to criticism by saying her amendment was geared toward ensuring Alaska's one reservation -- Metlakatla -- did receive those same jurisdictional rights. She also said that this particular legislation was not the place to sort out Alaska's deep-seated issues of tribal sovereignty.
"In Alaska, we have one, and only one, reservation: Metlakatla," Murkowski wrote. "The other 228 tribes have been described by the U.S. Supreme Court as 'tribes without territorial reach.' The expansion of jurisdiction over non-members of a tribe is a controversial issue in our state, and what works in the Lower 48, won't necessarily work here. Our solution begins in Alaska – with collaboration between the State of Alaska and tribes."
Alaska state Rep. Ben Nageak, D-Barrow, believes there must be a way to tackle the issue more effectively.
"We unfortunately lead the nation in violence against women, and that's a damn shame," Nageak said. "We should be combating that. We should be advocating for saying yes on that act."
When the state has an opportunity to adopt protections that would have a positive impact on a serious problem, he said, the effort needs to be made to work with it and get past any other issues that come up.
"Those issues are complex, domestic violence, tribal sovereignty," Nageak said. "But we need to start working together on issues that are of paramount interest to our Native groups. Not only Native groups, but to all the people, all the residents of the state of Alaska and the United States of America."
One way to approach that would be to change how the state of Alaska regards tribal power, Nageak said. "It would behoove the state of Alaska to recognize tribes," he said. "We should be recognized as a distinct governing body within the state of Alaska. There's nothing bad about it. It's just like a city government."
If not now, then when
Dillingham's Ginger Baim, director of Safe and Fear-Free Environment Inc., said while she rejoiced in the act's reauthorization, the exclusion was a shame.
"What the state of Alaska lost was an opportunity to more closely empower and engage tribes in finding solutions for safety for women and children and men who are challenged by interpersonal violence," Baim said. "This is a tremendous tool that was extended to tribes in the lower 48 that was not extended to Alaska tribes."
Baim said she can see where the institution of that kind of jurisdictional change in Alaska would have been challenging and certainly presented conflict. That being said, the rate of violence experienced by Alaska Native and American Indian women -- higher than any other group in this country -- begs for a more proactive approach.
"The state is unable to protect those women," Baim said. "And the state denied an opportunity to more fully engage the tribes. And it's shame."
In a state with the worst rate of domestic violence in the nation -- in fact double that of the runner-up -- questions of jurisdiction have prevented protective measures for battered women.
President of Naknek Native Village Patrick Patterson is frustrated that more foresight wasn't given to how to include tribes. "It should be addressed and we should have been there," he said. "It makes us sound like we're…like it's not a concern of ours."
Far from it, he said, the region's staggering rate of violent crime should have made inclusion a priority. "We should have been on the ground floor," Patterson said. "This here is just another slap in the face."
This story first appeared in The Arctic Sounder. Hannah Heimbuch can be reached at hheimbuch@reportalaska.com