SANTA FE, N.M. - A New Mexico museum is in the first stage of creating an exhibit devoted to the history of indigenous voting.

As recently as 1962, New Mexico suppressed indigenous voting rights on the basis that Native Americans living on reservations were not residents of the state. Fifteen years prior to that, said New Mexico History Museum executive director Billy Garrett, Indigenous people were kept away from the polls with the argument that they did not pay taxes.

"The fact that Native Americans had to sue to get the right to vote, as late as the 1940s, is something I don't think most people know about," he said.

Garrett said the exhibit will highlight the story of Miguel Trujillo, Sr., a Marine sergeant in World War II. He returned to New Mexico and waged a successful legal battle to overturn the state law that barred American Indians living on reservations from participating in elections.

Despite guaranteed voting rights in the United States, Native Americans - especially those who live on reservations - face obstacles. They may travel for many hours to cast ballots, because reservations lack voting sites or reliable mail service. Several states also have enacted voter ID laws requiring that people have a traditional street address, although that's not common on reservations. Garrett said museum exhibits often reveal the complexity of the nation's past.

"There are things that have happened in our history that tend to get buried, they tend to get forgotten," he said. "So, this is an important part of that process of making sure we understand the way that our country works."

He said the Santa Fe museum will use grant money from the National Endowment for the Humanities to develop the exhibit, including hiring Native American scholars to research the project. The NEH recently has awarded nearly $88 million in American Rescue Plan relief funding for economic recovery to cultural and educational institutions.


get more stories like this via email

With new voting maps for Montana's Legislature to be revealed soon, Native American communities are being encouraged to watch the process closely.

Billings-based Western Native Voice wants the Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission to respect tribal sovereignty in the process. One of the commission's goals is to keep communities of interest, such as tribes, intact.

Ta'jin Perez, deputy director of Western Native Voice, said keeping communities whole is important, as is ensuring representation in the Legislature.

"Candidates of choice are from your community and that these communities should be able to have the opportunity to elect someone that shares their values and shares who they are and the unique history and the unique cultures of these tribal areas," Perez outlined.

The commission has scheduled nine public meetings in August and September, so Montanans can comment on the maps, including three meetings online: Aug. 30 for the western region, Sep. 9 for the central region, and Sep. 19 for the eastern region.

Perez pointed out Montana has an independent redistricting commission, and contended it has done a good job of ensuring the Legislature is proportionally representative of the population of Native Americans in the state. He noted the independent setup of the commission has many upsides, including it is not beholden to the governor or lawmakers.

"An entire Legislature, their voice is intended to be just as loud as that of the public because of this independent commission that we have," Perez explained. "Other states don't enjoy this kind of thing."

Perez added voters should be engaged in the process.

"Representation that reflects communities as they are is important, and the only way that a body like the redistricting commission can do that is through public comment," Perez concluded.

The deadline for the redistricting plan is the 10th day of the 2023 legislative session.

New research shows COVID-19 caused life expectancy to drop for all groups of Americans, but none as much as American Indians and Native Alaskans.

Research from the University of Colorado estimates during the 2020-2021 pandemic, life expectancy for U.S. Native Americans declined by nearly five years, about three times that of white residents.

Ryan Masters, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder and co-author of the study, said after noting longevity had slipped three-and-a-quarter years among Black Americans and nearly four years among Hispanics, he did not expect worse news.

"The horrific drops among Hispanic population were really sobering," Masters recounted. "We were expecting something of that magnitude, but to see declines that were even greater was really a tragic, terrifying result that we saw."

Native Americans make up just 1.7% of the U.S. population, but more than 10% of the New Mexico population. Masters reported by 2021, life expectancy for Native Americans had slipped to about age 70 for women, and just under 64 for men. Overall, U.S. life expectancy decreased from around 79 years in 2019 to about 76 years in 2021, or approximately 2.5 years.

As vaccines became available last year, Masters pointed out peer countries began to rebound from a historic 2020 dip in life expectancy while the U.S. experienced even higher losses. He added deaths among minority groups played a huge role, including for those younger than 60.

"There was also some substantial losses of life in these midlife years," Masters outlined. "Due to cardio-metabolic diseases, drug overdoses, and unfortunately due to injuries caused by firearms and transportation accidents."

Masters added a similar life-expectancy decline hasn't been seen since World War II. The study, which has not been peer-reviewed, noted nearly one-million Americans died from COVID-19 during the two-year pandemic, blamed partly on the quality of public health options and the high cost of insurance and prescription drugs.

Tribal advocates are closely analyzing the potential impact of a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling dealing with state investigations of certain crimes on reservations. A common sentiment is that the protected rights of Native Americans are being chipped away.

The Supreme Court case stemmed from Oklahoma, about whether the state can prosecute non-Native Americans for crimes committed against an Indigenous person on tribal land. In a five-to-four decision, the court sided with the state.

Melody McCoy - staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund - said while it's a complex matter, it's a clear blow to tribal sovereignty.

"It's an unauthorized and unconsented intrusion," said McCoy, "of state authority within Indian country."

McCoy said how it affects future investigations depends on the motivations of each state. But she said the ball is now in hands of tribal governments, and whether they want to appeal to Congress.

South Dakota, which has nine federally recognized tribes, has optioned for at least some jurisdiction under a 1953 law that gave certain states power to prosecute crimes on tribal lands.

McCoy said in theory, adding more resources to an investigation isn't always a bad thing. But she noted that in these situations, there are culturally sensitive matters that tribal and federal authorities are often better equipped to handle.

"Not everything is cut and dry," said McCoy, "and you're dealing with vulnerable populations."

Other tribal advocates worry that state investigators might not carry out a thorough investigation if a non-Native comes to a reservation and commits a crime. They also worry about the court's interpretation expanding to other areas, such as environmental regulation.

In issuing its opinion, the court majority argued that a state has jurisdiction over all the areas within its borders.