Story Published: Jan 26, 2010
Story Updated: Jan 22, 2010
HARTFORD, Conn. – State Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal said he is ready to listen and learn from
tribal leaders and Indian country as he prepares to run for the U.S.
Senate.
Blumenthal announced the first week of January that he would seek
the Senate seat currently held by Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd, who is
not seeking re-election after serving five terms.
Long seen as a foe of Indian country, Blumenthal said that, if he is
elected, his new role as senator will require a different approach
to Indian issues.
“I view these issues as extraordinarily important, so I can talk to
you a little bit about them now, but my responses will be somewhat
more general than they may be in a month or two after I think
through some of the implications.”
Blumenthal intervened in the San Manuel and Carcieri
cases mentioned in the interview. In San Manuel, a federal
court panel ruled that tribal nations are subject to the
National Labor Relations Act; in Carcieri, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that the
Interior secretary does not have authority to take land into trust
for tribal nations federally acknowledged after the
1934 Indian Reorganization Act.
Following are excerpts from the interview:
Indian Country Today: You have been perceived as a
foe of Indian country. What is your understanding of the reasons for
that perception? What is your response to it?
Richard Blumenthal: My view is some perceptions of
me as a public official and perhaps as a person are based on
misconceptions. I have deep and unshakeable respect for the
principles of sovereignty and I have emphasized at every opportunity
how soundly significant the principles of sovereignty are as legal
and policy precepts. I believe in the concept of sovereignty as the
two tribes here (Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation and Mohegan
Tribe) know well. I’ve made that belief a matter of action as well
as words, and the respect for sovereignty is one of the reasons that
I have opposed some of the petitions for federal recognition when
tribal groups fail to meet the legal criteria.
I believe that federal recognition bestows a status of sovereignty
that is solemn and historic, and it changes the relationship between
the state and the tribe. It becomes a government-to-government
relationship, which I respect, and it should be done only when all
the criteria are met.
I’ve also emphasized that the two federally recognized tribes in
Connecticut merit federal recognition on the facts so I’ve not
opposed all tribes seeking recognition. I’ve opposed those I felt
lacked sufficient evidence to meet the criteria. Those tribal groups
may contend I was wrong in my assessment of the evidence, but
ultimately the federal government agreed.
ICT:
While you’ve often said you support tribal sovereignty, your
interventions in Carcieri and San Manuel are seen
as contradictions of that assertion. Would you see a need to mend
fences with Indian country if you are elected, and if so what will
your approach be?
RB: The point is I’m seeking a new and different
role as an elected official. I really hope to begin a conversation
with tribal leaders across the country, because if I am fortunate
enough to be successful in becoming a U.S. senator, my role will be
a very different one than it is right now.
Obviously, I’ve taken positions on these issues as a state official
and attorney general advocating Connecticut’s interests and I would
continue to have as my priority the people of Connecticut, but I
want to be fully understood and I want to fully understand the
perspectives and information that Indian country can provide to me.
A national legislator has a completely different role and assignment
and mission, and I would hope to listen – and I really mean listen
carefully and thoroughly – to the messages and the insights that
tribal leaders have, and perhaps to dispel some of the
misconceptions, but more importantly, to learn from them.
ICT:
San Manual and Carcieri directly diminish
sovereignty, especially Carcieri, because sovereignty is
land based and there are some tribes, including newly acknowledged
ones that are landless. How do you reconcile that perceived
contradiction?
RB: I stand by the positions I’ve taken as attorney
general. These issues are by no means simple in so far as they
involve statutory interpretation. For example, San Manuel
involved an issue of the
National Labor Relations Act statutory interpretation.
Carcieri involved a U.S. Supreme Court stating and I’m
quoting ‘plain and unambiguous intent of the Indian Reorganization
Act.’ The positions I took legally in those cases were vindicated by
the courts. Nobody can say that I took outlandish or even unfounded
legal positions. In fact, they were successful and correct,
according to the courts.
ICT:
Your position on Carcieri was upheld, but the law is not carved in
stone and Congress is contemplating a ‘Carcieri fix.’ How
do you think you’d approach the Carcieri fix if you were in
the Senate now?
RB: I would want to talk to Indian leaders before
setting forth any detailed set of positions on how the IRA can be
improved and I’ve said that about a number of other issues. But the
overall conversation I would like to have with Indian country is not
about statutory interpretation or technical legal points. It’s about
ultimate goals and common grounds – that’s the most important point
because my responsibilities, again if I’m fortunate enough to be
elected, would be much larger than just legal advocacy in court.