The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Donna M. Loring, a Penobscot Nation Tribal elder, Vietnam War veteran, and former Tribal representative to the Maine Legislature, is an author, playwright, and nationally award-winning radio host. The views expressed here are her own and do not represent the official position of any Tribe or organization she is affiliated with.
As the Maine Legislature debates the future of tribal rights, it is important to be clear about what is and what is not being discussed. The bill before lawmakers was intended to address the long-standing issue of Wabanaki sovereignty. Instead, the proposal now emerging from the governor’s office reframes that debate around tax exemptions and economic benefits for tribal citizens.
Economic opportunity matters. But economic policy is not sovereignty. And tax policy is not self-government.
The distinction matters.
The original purpose of legislation like LD 785 was to address the structural problem created by the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act and the state’s implementing legislation. For decades, Wabanaki leaders, legal scholars, and bipartisan commissions have documented how those laws placed Maine tribes under a framework unlike any other federally recognized tribal nations in the United States.
Instead of operating with the sovereign authority recognized for more than 570 tribes nationwide, the Wabanaki Nations have often been treated by the state more like municipalities than governments. This unique legal framework has limited the tribes’ ability to exercise the same authorities that other tribal nations use to strengthen their communities, build their economies, and govern their own affairs.
That is the issue the Legislature was asked to confront.
Yet the proposal now being advanced shifts the focus away from sovereignty and toward a package of tax exemptions and economic provisions. While such measures may provide certain benefits to tribal citizens, they do not address the fundamental question of self-governance. They do not resolve the underlying imbalance in how the state treats tribal governments under Maine law.
If the administration believes tax relief or economic initiatives for tribal citizens should be considered, the governor has every ability to pursue those ideas. Governors routinely introduce legislation through their departments and legislative sponsors. These proposals are commonly referred to as “governor’s bills,” and they are a normal part of the legislative process in Augusta.
Nothing prevents the governor from submitting such a bill.
What is troubling is the decision to substitute economic policy for a debate that was originally about sovereignty. Rather than allowing the Legislature to fully consider the question of tribal self-government, the conversation is now being redirected toward a narrower set of economic provisions.
That substitution risks repeating a pattern that has defined the relationship between Maine and the Wabanaki Nations for generations.
Throughout the state’s history, major questions of tribal rights have often been deferred by offering smaller policy adjustments that avoid addressing sovereignty directly. Economic programs, administrative reforms, or limited policy concessions have sometimes been presented as progress while leaving the underlying structure of state control largely unchanged.
But sovereignty is not a program that can be replaced with a tax break.
Sovereignty is the recognition that tribal nations are governments — governments that existed long before the state of Maine and that maintain a political relationship with the United States under federal law. It means recognizing that tribes have the authority to govern their internal affairs and to pursue economic development on terms similar to other tribal nations across the country.
This is not a radical concept. It is the standard framework under which most federally recognized tribes operate today.
The question before Maine lawmakers is whether the state will continue to treat the Wabanaki Nations as an exception to that national standard, or whether it will move toward a relationship based on mutual respect between governments.
Economic opportunities for tribal citizens should absolutely be discussed. But those conversations should take place honestly and transparently through legislation designed specifically for that purpose.
They should not replace the long-overdue debate about sovereignty.
The Legislature was asked to consider whether Maine will recognize the self-governing authority of the Wabanaki Nations. That conversation deserves to happen clearly, openly, and on its own terms.
