Back when the treaty signed, Native Americans did not have the right to vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_civil_rights#V...) thus a delegate would have been the only way for Native Americans to have a voice in Congress. This is the same with the other delegates, who all represent places that do not otherwise have representation in Congress.

Now Native Americans all have the right to vote, and thus have a voice in Congress.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Here is a photo of the Cherokee Nation capital building, preserved at New Echota, Georgia. https://joshuacurry.com/american-way/cherokee-capitol-new-ec... This was once the epicenter of the Cherokee government which organized to trade with the colonies. It was taken by a group of 20 non-natives who signed the treaty of New Echota without native consent and enforced by Andrew Jackson. This particular action began the "Trail of Tears". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_New_Echota

Perhaps we should just grant statehood to the various Indian nations so they may be formally admitted into this republic. I am not a fan of giving representation to alien nations. I'm not sure our courts have legal jurisdiction over such agreements so long as they are extra-national, so there may be no way to enforce it.

I haven't been to the Cherokee reservation, but have been to a couple of reservations for smaller tribes.

They were universally sad/depressing places. Usually they have one central liquor store/"market" with drunk people hanging out in front. Dirty and dilapidated buildings...lots of natives suffering from diabetes and obesity.

What this country did and continues to do to the natives contrasts sharply with how we preach "human rights" and such to the rest of the world.

According to https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state-and-regional/citing-tr... the delegate might not be able to vote

This is fascinating. Good for them in researching their historical rights. I hope they succeed - it will only help Congress to have their views represented.

I would imagine that Carpenter v. Murphy might end up being a bit of an indicator on which way this will end up getting litigated.

Am I the only one that finds the article strange?

I mean: "Most times, they can’t vote on the House floor..." - In the quoted text 'they' refers to the delegate that the Cherokee nation would get.

So they are fighting for a delegate with no floor voting power.

Then the article seems to conclude: "...the new delegate would give extra weight to Cherokee Nation citizens’ votes — a so-called “super vote.”

How can these two be? IANAL, so maybe someone with a legal background has some insight?

> since it would cover geographical territory that’s already part of two congressional districts

Correct me if I'm wrong but these districts can be created, destroyed or redrawn practically at a whim, no? I recall some ramblings that Democrats might remove the district in which AOC runs because they don't like her.

Don't know much about this issue just thinking it's a rather weak excuse.

The "Cherokee Nation" which abrogated any claim to being an actual separate national entity within the USA when they agreed to national recognition and citizenship within the boundaries of Oklahoma, already have two delegates in two different districts, the first and second Congressional districts of Oklahoma.

Pity she is a Democrat, but good that some representation is finally present.

I'm no bleeding heart SJW, but holy hell do the native people deserve some type of representation in our govt. The atrocities committed against them were unconscionable.

We need to end special treatment under the law for any race, white or red or whatever. No race should get special treatment in the United States. This country should welcome immigrants. If they don't want to be part of it, we should allow them to leave peacefully. That is the most sensible policy.

What is up with all the Native American casinos?

I honestly cannot see how one can support the electoral college and not support that the Cherokee get their special representation in Congress as well.

At least, if the argument for the electoral college used is the oft repeated ”people from the more populous states would trample over the less populous states”. Why are people from sparsely populated states a minority that has to be treated like a special snowflake, lest their rights be violated by the more populous ones, but minorities like Native Americans who have suffered centuries of oppression are not? Especially when you can move from one state to another but you cannot stop being Native American.

My suggestion is enough out of the box that many people will think I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. This is a great idea. I think we should give out House seats to other groups who have been historically disadvantaged. Maybe we could have a few House members that only blacks get to vote for. It might be harder to identify LGBT people, but they could get one too as far as I'm concerned. It could be time limited, like maybe for 50 years or something. But it could fit under the reparations umbrella in a way that might be more tasteful to voters than just cutting a check to people.