Southwest Va. congressmen vote against Violence Against Women Act, citing tribal prosecution provision
The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed an extension of Violence Against Women Act, and President Barack Obama announced that he will sign the measure into law.
The law passed by a vote of 286-138 after the House defeated a more narrowly drawn proposal offered by the Republican majority. The bill going to Obama’s desk originated in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
All three congressmen who represent parts of Southwest Virginia – Republicans Bob Goodlatte of Roanoke County, Morgan Griffith of Salem and Robert Hurt of Chatham – voted against the Senate version of the bill. All 138 opposing votes were cast by Republicans, while 87 GOP members joined Democrats in supporting the bill.
Goodlatte, Griffith and Hurt said the Senate version of the bill raised constitutional questions. Specifically, they objected to a provision giving tribal courts authority to prosecute non-Native Americans who are charged with domestic violence crimes against women on American Indian lands.
“When you no longer have the right to opt out for a jury of your peers, I have a problem with that,” Griffith said in a phone interview. “If you’re charged with any kind of a crime under the Violence Act. . . and that includes assault and battery, that bill now gives sole jurisdiction to the tribe. They claim that they would, in fact, honor the constitutional guarantees, but there are still some real questions about it.”
Griffith said the more narrow House bill, which he supported, would allow a defendant to “opt out” and be tried in a federal court for an offense that occurs on tribal lands.
Goodlatte, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the Senate bill is unconstitutional.
“Domestic abuse is an all-too-common occurrence in the United States that destroys families and ends lives,” Goodlatte said in a written statement. “As someone who supported the VAWA reauthorization in 2000, 2005, 2012 and this week with the House alternative, I have a long track record of supporting efforts to combat domestic violence. In my role as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I will continue to search for ways to end this crisis in our homes and communities. While the House offered a bill that addressed all victims of violence in an appropriate manner, the Senate passed an unconstitutional bill that violates Americans’ constitutional rights. While well intentioned, I simply could not support unconstitutional legislation.”
Hurt, in a statement issued by his office, also raised concerns about the provision dealing with tribal prosecutions.
“When I was a prosecutor in the Pittsylvania County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office, I saw firsthand the pain and suffering caused by domestic violence,” Hurt said. “During the years I served as an Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney I worked with hundreds of victims of domestic violence and worked to convict and punish hundreds of offenders. In addition, when I served as a member of the Virginia General Assembly, I worked on the Courts of Justice committee to ensure that Virginia has some of the most effective laws in the country for preventing and punishing domestic violence and for caring for victims of domestic violence. As I did last year, I voted in support of the House proposal to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. However, I was unable to support the final proposal that was ultimately adopted because I was concerned that the provisions relating to tribal prosecutions, while well-intended, did not contain the full constitutional protections guaranteed to all Americans.”
– Michael Sluss
March 1, 2013 - 5:34 PM
Moderate Republicans have prevailed and the three amigos have once again shown Virginia remains mired in the 1800′s.
Go GOP , save us from the wicked Liberals. They will destroy this great nation built to serve God if we don’t stop them. Any means should be used ! !
I’m willing to bet that none of these men have EVER objected to Native Americans being tried in non tribal courts. What’s WRONG with this picture?
What’s next? Old white men can only be tried by juries of old white men?
They must think Virginians are a really special brand of stupid.
Griffith is my rep, and you can bet I’ll remember this the next time he’s up for re-election.
So these 3 didn’t vote because of the tribal provision, what a lame excuse..that ranks right up there with some of the dumbest ideas of all time..if anything that should have been a primary reason for voting yes..after all the suffering Native Americans have had to endure at the hands of White men…give me a break…you 3 just fell in line like good little soldiers and did what Cantor wanted not whats good for the people that elected you.
Native American tribes have constitutionally-protected sovereignty on their lands, and thus have the authority and responsibility to protect and serve their citizenry. I am disappointed that our own representatives, Goodlatte, Graffith, and Hurt, so poorly understand the treaties establishing these rights.
We no longer live in the 1800′s where the U.S. government actively persecutes native Americans for no better reason than to take their lands. That shameful past rationale should not be current justification for taking away the dignity and rights of our fellow Americans. Just as the Commonwealth, including its local municipalities, have the duty to police its territory, so, too, native Americans have the guaranteed right to defend against trespassers and criminals, including bringing them to justice.
Shame on our elected officials for so clumsily and backwardly representing southwest Virginia in this, the 21st century. Jefferson and Madison envisioned a government with enlightened representation; this vote by Goodlatte, Griffith, and Hurt displays a lack of understanding both about federal tribal treaty law and about respecting the laws of other sovereign institutions. Would these three dare to tell Hawaii or Iowa how to run their local laws?
This electorate would prefer representation that displays more tolerance, inclusion, and compromise instead of such rigid, politically-driven demagoguery. If you want to represent us, please get your facts straight. Do not dishonor us by displaying your lack of expertise.
By the way, did any of them work Friday to even ~try~ to avert sequestration? Or were they among the other disresputable representatives who left town earlier in the week, but not before picking up their paychecks? Would you expect to keep your job if you acted like that?
Be honest Donna, you never voted for him to begin with…..Whoa Tina, how about Hispanic men….don’t be so discriminatory, Cortez was no whitey neither was Columbus. How about a violence against white men act?
What informed citizens know, and apparently those above do not, is that tribal law prevails in places outside of the “desert reservations” such as all the casino’s through the country operated on tribal lands and that these are the places with the greatest possibility of a person (old white man) being subject to tribal law, trial, judgement and punishment. What a crime when common sense decision are given the political twist by the left. I would not want to deny even the most left lefty their right to a jury of their peers and to the justice system we have. No one other than tribe members, should be subject to tribal laws. PERIOD. Hat’s off to those who had the courage to oppose this measure.
Just another embarrassment for SWVA.
“Be honest Donna, you never voted for him to begin with…..Whoa Tina, how about Hispanic men….don’t be so discriminatory, Cortez was no whitey neither was Columbus. How about a violence against white men act?”
Spain =! Hispanic
If you’d ever been outside the country, you’d realize that the “brown” folks you’re thinking of are not found in Spain at all.
Also, Columbus was Italian.
FAIL
The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 mandates that tribal courts follow the same due process rules that the federal court system follows. Court cases going back to the 50s have said that tribal courts are legitimate courts. By developing a relationship on tribal lands you have made them your peers, otherwise you cannot be subject to tribal courts. The sad part is these 3 congressman have affirmed that the interests of a few evil doers should come before that of women’s shelters, violence prevention, and other important aspects of this law.
So “tribal prosecutions” do not “contain the full constitutional protections guaranteed to all Americans”? Really? Is that the story we are sticking with?