Belonging and sovereignty – these are central keywords in understanding Native American struggles to assert the right to exist, to assert the right to cultural self-determination, and to assert the right to a self-defined identity and history. The 2010s, however, have seen an exceptional case in which a tribal nation had their right to their identity challenged not by the United States federal government or other Euro-American institution but their own citizens—their friends, neighbors, and tribal council.
The Nooksack are an Indigenous nation residing close to the Canadian border in northwest Washington. The relatively small polity of 2,000 members was thrown into the public eye in 2013 when the tribal council decided that a group of approximately 300 individuals had been erroneously enrolled. According to the council, these members lacked the documents necessary to prove their ancestry as Nooksack Indians “by blood.”
The council concluded that the proper action would be to disenroll the entire extended family that descended from the same foremother, totaling 306 member—a staggering 15% of the tribal nation.
In 2016, the situation took an unexpected turn when the U.S. federal government threatened to intervene in the tribe’s domestic affairs. The council had not, it was argued, organized a new election after four seats had expired. As a result, as of March 2016, the council was not considered legitimate by the federal government. Since the council also wasn’t officially authorized to sign off on contracts and grants, the Nooksack lost tens of millions of dollars of state and federal money. In addition, the federal government announced that if the council failed to organize the election, the government would take over the tribe’s services, including health care and law enforcement.
The controversy has continued to this day. Both sides—the council led by Chairman Bob Kelly and the 306, as the members facing disenrollment are now called—have sought the help of lawyers to advance their respective positions. The controversy culminated in the closing of the Nooksack casino by the federal government in June 2017. It was re-opened in September, though, with a fine of 13 million dollars looming over the council.
It seems this was a deciding factor for the council: the Nooksack are currently preparing for a new, supervised tribal council election which is to be held in November 2017. Based upon posts found on their Facebook page, the 306 are eager to exercise their right to vote, end the disenrollment debate, and reaffirm access to citizenship-based benefits, such as health care.
Some of the members facing the threat of disenrollment have speculated that the question was never about the authenticity of their identity as Nooksack but that it had more to do with political power. The goal, according to them, was to get rid of a notably-sized faction of people opposing Kelly. Some say the tension derives from family matters. The 306 moved back and became citizens ten years after the tribe was federally recognized in 1971. To members who had enrolled earlier, they never belonged.
Nevertheless, the question remains: who has the authority to define tribal citizenship criteria and are there limits to that power?