HELENA, Mont. - State legislatures across the country have passed laws criminalizing an essential part of civic participation in a democracy - protesting. According to one expert, these laws also could infringe on the religious rights of Native Americans.

A measure passed in Montana this year is designed to protect critical infrastructure, like oil pipelines.

Rosalyn LaPier - associate professor of environmental studies at the University of Montana - said if someone is convicted under this law, they could be fined up to $150,000 and spend 30 years in prison.

"What is different about the Montana law, and a few other laws," said LaPier, "is that the Montana law also includes people who assist protesters."

LaPier said many states have borrowed similar language to punish protesters and people who aid them.

She believes the laws are in response to protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline at Standing Rock, and to prevent actions like the Keystone XL pipeline protests, a project that was proposed to run through Montana.

LaPier said the people who gathered at Standing Rock saw themselves more as protectors of the land than protesters. She said Native Americans treat the land as sacred, and the places where these demonstrations take place are comparable to church.

"They're coming in and they're praying there," said LaPier. "They're coming in and they're blessing the place. They're coming in and they may be having a ritual or a ceremony there, and that is just in accordance with the tradition or the culture of that particular area."

The 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act allowed indigenous people to exercise their traditional religions, but LaPier noted the law often isn't held up in court.

She added laws that make it harder to protest also erode the American tradition of civil disobedience, which has been a tenet of the society since Boston Tea Party protesters broke the law at the country's founding.

"Today, with these anti-protesting laws, what we are saying is that civil disobedience is no longer something that we want to occur in the United States," said LaPier. "It's no longer a value that we hold in the United States."

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

The road to voting rights for Native Americans has been long, but advocates for indigenous people hope to build on the momentum they've seen in recent years to get more people to the polls.

Native Americans were not granted U.S. citizenship until 1924.

Keaton Sunchild, political director for the group Western Native Voice in Montana, said even as citizens, and with Constitutional amendments ensuring everyone's right to vote, Native Americans struggled to cast their ballots. They faced Jim Crow-style barriers similar to those aimed at Black Americans, such as poll taxes and literacy tests, until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He said even after the civil-rights legislation, there are still obstacles.

"It was a slow process," Sunchild observed. "There were hurdles along the way and even now there's still barriers and whatnot. Maybe they're not as overt as they were in the beginning, but there's certainly still some challenges to getting folks to the ballot box."

Sunchild pointed out recent legislation in Montana will make voting more difficult for Native Americans. For instance, Native Americans used same-day voter registration more than other groups, but it was curtailed by lawmakers in the 2021 session. They also utilize ballot collecting because voting sites often are far from home and mail service can be unpredictable, but it was limited by lawmakers last year.

He emphasized the recent drawing of Montana's congressional districts also will limit Native Americans' influence on elections.

However, Sunchild noted voter turnout is on the rise, with 63% voting in 2018 and 66% in 2020. His organization is stressing the importance of the 2022 election, which is not a presidential election year but will contain candidates with influence over the state.

"They're making the decisions that impact us on a local level," Sunchild stated. "And so, midterms often allow us to have a full slate of candidates where we're voting on nothing but candidates that are going to actually make a difference."

Indigenous people still are dealing with racist narratives as well. Sunchild said even state lawmakers have questioned why tribal members have the right to vote, and it can make it uncomfortable to speak up about voting rights.

However, the Native American voting bloc has changed recent elections. Sunchild said his group leans on the fact it took a long time for Native Americans to gain the right to vote when they are encouraging people to the polls.

"It's going to take consistent participation from everybody that's already registered," Sunchild urged. "And it's going to take new people coming into the equation, but if we can do that, then ultimately we can make a difference, and we will make a difference. But we need all of us, and it's going to be a team effort."

Wyoming will appeal a recent district court decision affirming Crow tribal hunting rights granted under treaties signed in the 19th century, rights recently affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dan Lewerenz, staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, said tribal leaders were very clear about maintaining hunting rights before they agreed to move into a reservation on just a portion of lands they had occupied for centuries.

"The Crow tribe made a deal, and they gave up millions and millions of acres of their traditional lands," Lewerenz explained. "And one of the things that they specifically negotiated for: We need to be able to hunt, throughout our lands, even if we're going to give most of those lands up. And that was part of the deal."

Wyoming has refused to recognize treaty hunting rights for more than a century. But in 2019, a case involving Clayvin Herrera of the Crow Tribe, prosecuted for hunting elk in the Bighorn National Forest, made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Citing previous lower-court rulings, Wyoming argued the state needed to enforce hunting laws for conservation purposes. The state also claimed national forest lands were occupied, and therefore subject to hunting regulations.

Lewerenz pointed out the conservation landscape has changed dramatically since the lower court rulings 25 years ago, with elk numbers now strong. He added the term "occupied" at the time of the treaty is not equivalent to the federal government creating a national forest.

"And the Supreme Court said no, you've got that all wrong," Lewerenz recounted. "Occupied would have meant settled, people living there, working there. And the national forest laws actually prevent that; you can't build a home in a national forest, you can't live there."

Lewerenz noted Wyoming's ongoing prosecution of tribal hunters has created a chilling effect. If members want to exercise an important right to feed their family, they put themselves at significant risk.

"The act of hunting has spiritual and cultural significance for Crow Indians," Lewerenz asserted. "Elk have spiritual and cultural significance, and provide a primary source of food for a number of people on the Crow Reservation."

ROSEBUD, Neb. -- A lawsuit accusing a Nebraska school district of violating a Lakota family's First Amendment rights and unlawful racial discrimination is headed to court.

The suit was filed after a school employee cut two girls' hair during school lice checks, even after the parents raised concerns.

Rose Godinez, interim legal director for the ACLU of Nebraska, the group representing the family associated with the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, explained hair is considered a sacred symbol that should only be cut by specific people under certain conditions.

"The family explicitly told the school district to stop cutting the students' hair, because it violated their beliefs," Godinez explained. "And despite their pleas, the school district continued to cut the two girls' hair multiple times."

A federal judge recently rejected the Cody Kilgore Unified School District's qualified immunity defense, which shields public officials from liability, clearing the way for the case to proceed to trial.

School officials have claimed educators were simply doing their job protecting public health. The school's written head-lice policy includes no mention of cutting hair.

Godinez noted even though school employees were on clear notice their actions violated students' religious beliefs, the policy was only applied to Native American students. She added the events also brought back historic trauma for the family, when Native American children were forced to assimilate in boarding schools.

"That has been very heavy for them, but they have remained strong in seeking justice not only for their two daughters but also for all Native American students in our schools right now," Godinez stressed.

The judge dismissed a claim the students' due-process protections were violated, but wrote claims focused on free exercise of religion and racial discrimination should move forward. Godinez acknowledged she is looking forward to arguing the case in court, because she believes all students have a right to live true to their beliefs and cultures at school.