Listen to this article
State legislators in Maine rejected a bill last month that would have created a state-level process, similar to one on the books in Vermont, for recognizing local groups as Native American tribes. Opponents of the bill pointed to the sharp criticism Vermont’s process has faced in recent years as one of the reasons to vote the legislation down.
“Take a look at what’s happened in Vermont,” said Rep. Adam Lee, a Democrat from Auburn, Maine, on the House floor in early May. The “contentious issue” in Vermont, he continued, has “harmed” Vermont’s relationship with tribes that are recognized at the federal level, suggesting that by passing the bill, Maine would be doing the same.
Debate over the proposal came as legislators in Vermont and New Hampshire were also considering — and also did not advance — other bills related to tribal identity.
Vermont’s recognition process has been criticized by two Abenaki nations centered in Quebec, as well as researchers at the University of Vermont and in Canada. They maintain that many members of the four groups Vermont recognized as Abenaki in 2011 and 2012 are not Indigenous and, instead, have been appropriating Abenaki culture.
The Vermont groups assert that they can, in fact, claim Abenaki identities and have repeatedly urged the First Nations to stay out of their affairs.
Odanak and W8linak First Nations have federal-level recognition from the Canadian government. That’s a different standard — and, the First Nations’ leaders say, a far more rigorous one — than the Vermont groups had to meet. With federal recognition, Odanak and W8linak can access greater government resources than the Vermont groups can in the U.S., and they can claim pieces of land as sovereign territory. (According to the First Nations’ tribal government, the symbol “8” used in “W8linak” represents a specific “o” sound, which is pronounced as it is in the word “on.”)
The state recognition proposal in Maine also faced opposition from the leaders of four Wabanaki nations located within the modern-day borders of that state — and which have federal-level recognition from the U.S. government. Those are the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, Mi’kmaq Nation, Penobscot Nation and the Passamaquoddy Tribe.
Federal, state recognition
The Wabanaki Nations have longstanding ties to Abenaki people, including through a shared language. At the heart of disagreements over Vermont’s recognition process are contested narratives of who can claim legitimate descendency from historic Abenaki communities that were largely stripped of their homeland by European colonizers.
In a statement posted to Facebook in March, the Wabanaki Alliance — a nonprofit organization that advocates for the Wabanaki Nations’ sovereignty — pointed to Vermont’s process in urging Maine lawmakers to reject the bill proposed in that state.
“The creation of state recognition processes in other states has caused problems and frustrations, as in the notable example of Abenaki tribes in Vermont who could not meet the criteria for federal recognition, but who were still recognized by the State of Vermont,” the alliance wrote in the post.
The statement also highlighted “years of objections and testimony from the recognized existing Abenaki Nations in Quebec” about the Vermont-based groups’ “legitimacy.”
Vermont lawmakers set up a state recognition process under a law, Act 107, passed in 2010. While not a carbon copy of the Vermont legislation, the bill considered in Maine this year would have, like in Vermont, given power to review applications for recognition to a commission appointed by the state’s governor. The commission, like in Vermont, could then advance a recommendation to the Legislature for further consideration.
It did include identical language, in some areas, to Vermont’s existing law, including a requirement that “a substantial number” of the members of a group seeking state recognition are related to one another “by kinship and trace their ancestry to a kinship group through genealogy or other methods.”
That’s a different — and less stringent — standard than the U.S. federal government’s recognition requirements, which demand, among other stipulations, that an applicant must have been identified as Native American “on a substantially continuous basis since 1900.” One of the groups in Vermont — the Abenaki Nation at Missisquoi — applied for federal recognition in the 1980s, but its application was rejected.
The Maine proposal was closely linked to a yearslong push by another group called the Kineo St. John Tribe to get formal recognition from the state’s government. The Kineo St. John Tribe does not have federal-level tribal recognition, either.
(While the Wabanaki Nations have federal recognition, they receive fewer benefits and protections than other federally recognized tribes in the U.S. due to their unique status under existing state and federal law, according to the Wabanaki Alliance’s website.)
In May, Maine legislators also rejected a bill that would have granted the Kineo St. John Tribe state-level recognition without establishing a process that other groups could use in the future. Supporters of the bill, including Maine Rep. Jennifer Poirier, a Republican from Skowhegan, said acknowledgment of the group’s legitimacy was long overdue.
Leaders from the Wabanaki Nations were opposed to that legislation too. The Wabanaki Alliance’s executive director, Maulian Bryant, emphasized that the nations took issue more with establishing a state-level process than with the identity of the group seeking recognition.
“The concerns within the Wabanaki Alliance are, you know, appropriating tribal identity and validity,” Bryant said during a Maine legislative committee hearing in March. “Maybe not the group in question right now. But, it could lead to groups down the road, basically, meeting a much lower threshold set by state government — and not having a whole lot of validity as tribal people.”
Efforts in Vermont, New Hampshire
Maine legislators’ consideration of the bills came as their counterparts in Vermont heard two sharply contrasting presentations at the Statehouse in Montpelier this year. One, hosted by Vermont Rep. Troy Headrick, I-Burlington, featured Odanak leaders and urged lawmakers to reconsider, if not undo, Vermont’s state recognition process.
Headrick also introduced a Vermont House bill that would establish a task force to “review the validity” of the state’s past tribal recognitions — and determine whether any should be rescinded. The legislation, H.362, had a brief hearing in the House General & Housing Committee in early April but did not advance past the panel this year.
Odanak and W8linak leaders have backed Headrick’s effort, calling it “a significant step toward recognizing the true history and rights of the Abenaki people” in a press release.
Later in April, the Vermont Commission on Native American Affairs, which is the panel tasked with reviewing state recognition applications, held a presentation of its own at the Statehouse featuring leaders from Vermont’s state-recognized tribes. Those groups are the Missisquoi, the Elnu Abenaki, Nulhegan Abenaki, and Koasek Band of the Koas Abenaki Nation.
The Vermont leaders — along with several researchers — urged legislators to reject Odanak and W8linak’s push to revisit the recognition process and, instead, spend time advocating for the members of the state-recognized tribes’ own needs and interests.
Following that presentation, several Vermont House members, led by Georgia Republican Rep. Carolyn Branagan, introduced a resolution stating that the Legislature “reaffirms its support” for the state’s existing recognition process as well as for the “legitimacy” of the four groups that have already been recognized.
The measure, J.R.H.4, had a hearing in the general and housing committee in May but didn’t make it past that point, either, before Vermont lawmakers adjourned for the year.
One of the speakers at the April panel was Don Stevens, chief of the Nulhegan group. Just a month prior, Stevens was in New Hampshire speaking to legislators about a bill under consideration in that state’s House — and that Stevens was keen to see pass.
The proposal, which also did not make it over the finish line this year, would have allowed only enrolled members of state- or federally-recognized tribes with “historic and contemporary” ties to New Hampshire to serve on the state’s existing Commission on Native American Affairs. That would include Stevens’ group, per the bill, as well as the three other Vermont-recognized tribes.
The legislation would also have given the leaders of recognized tribes power to nominate people to serve on the commission, with the speaker of the New Hampshire House confirming appointments. Currently, the state’s governor appoints applicants to the majority of the seats on the panel, who hail “from the Native American communities throughout the state,” according to the commission’s procedures.
There are no groups, however, with state- or federal-level recognition based in New Hampshire today. The bill would have also called for a report back on whether New Hampshire should develop its own state tribal recognition process, like Vermont’s.
Stevens said he supported the new proposed nomination process because it would allow the Nulhegan group to better advocate for its hundreds of members who live in New Hampshire, even though the group is based in Vermont. He said the border is, in some ways, arbitrary for those people because ancestral Abenaki territory spans both states.
“I’m just saying, you know, recognize the fact that that’s our homeland,” Stevens said in an interview. “We need to be on the commission to represent our own people.”
Currently, some members of New Hampshire’s commission are part of groups that say they are Abenaki but aren’t recognized by a state or federal government, according to New Hampshire Public Radio. Several members of the commission spoke at the March hearing, too, and said they opposed the proposal because it would, in their view, cede authority over a New Hampshire panel to people who live in a different state.
Asked about that argument in an interview, Stevens said his goal was not to “go against” anyone in a neighboring state, because his and the other Vermont groups already have the legitimacy they need from Vermont’s state government.
“We’re already protected,” he said of Vermont’s groups. “We’re already recognized.”
Headrick, the Burlington representative, sent an email in March to the sponsors of the New Hampshire bill suggesting they reconsider it, pointing to Odanak and W8linak’s assertions that the Vermont-based groups have not sufficiently demonstrated Abenaki ancestry.
“I strongly urge careful consideration to avoid repeating the mistakes made here in Vermont,” Headrick wrote in the message, which he shared with VTDigger.
The New Hampshire bill also drew opposition from the Quebec-based First Nations themselves. In a press release issued after state legislators decided not to advance the measure, the First Nations’ leaders framed that fact as a win.
‘’This decision demonstrates a growing awareness of Indigenous and identity-related issues as well as an understanding of the repercussions that actions such as those proposed in this bill can have on our rights, identity, and heritage,” Rick O’Bomsawin, the Odanak chief, said in the statement. “We hope that this stance will help protect our Nation and discourage acts of usurpation that affect our people.”
