(MintPress)-In the midst of a heated campaign battle over which party appeals more to female voters, Republicans are blaming Democrats for playing politics with alterations in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that extend extra domestic violence and assault protections to Native Americans, immigrants and those involved in same-sex relationships.
The partisan debate arrives in a politically charged era, in which Republicans have repeatedly been accused of supporting measures that evoke offense and limit women’s rights.
Traditionally passed on a 5-year reauthorization, the VAWA provides funding to states and local governments to respond and handle cases of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking and sexual assault. The Senate version of the bill seeks a 5-year renewal of $659.3 million each year — that’s down from the previous Act, which offered $795.8 million annually.
A political issue or sincere concern?
The bill, which has passed with nonpartisan support since 1994, was introduced in the Senate this session by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., with a few new provisions. While the Senate version has already secured the support of 60 co-sponsors, including eight Republican senators, members of the GOP-controlled House — and some senators — are fighting back with a new version of the bill that fits their liking.
One controversial aspect of the Senate bill calls for tribal authority to prosecute non-Native American men living on reservation land who inflict domestic abuse on Native American women. Currently, tribal councils have no authority to try or prosecute such individuals on domestic assault charges, even if they reside on reservation land. The House version of the bill would nix that provision, instead extending the rights of tribal council to plea to the federal government for protection orders against perpetrators.
Other controversial aspects of the legislation seek to allow those involved in same-sex relationships to benefit from domestic violence services sponsored through the Act, which include protection services and legal assistance. The House version deletes such language entirely. Proponents of the measure say there’s no need to add such language to the bill, as it’s not evident that such victims are being denied services.
Leahy’s Senate version also included an increased Visa count from 10,000 to 15,000 for immigrants — legal and illegal — who are victims of domestic abuse. The House version keeps the visa count static.
Battle over tribal power
Two out of five Native American women have suffered from domestic violence, according to Amnesty International. With 86 percent of such incidents occurring at the hands of non-Native men, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, many cases are not making their way to the courts.
Under federal law, a non-Native man cannot be tried in tribal court, even if he resides in the reservation at the time of the alleged crime. In order for a Native American woman to press charges, she would have to do so in a federal court, which for many Native American women is not easily accessible.
Provisions to the new VAWA would call that into question, allowing tribal law to tackle cases against non-Native men accused of domestic violence against Native American women.
Republicans opposed to that particular measure say the provision could cause questions on the grounds of its constitutionality. In response to the bill, Iowa Republican Senator Charles E. Grassley said in a Washington Post story that the Act constituted immigration fraud and unconstitutional measures, presumably referring to the Native American provision.
More than 50 leading legal scholars sent a letter to key members of Congress on April 21, declaring their support for VAWA, claiming the legislation would withstand judicial scrutiny regarding its constitutionality.
“Nothing in this legislation suggests that a defendant in tribal court will be subject to proceedings which are not consistent with the United States Constitution,” the letter states.
In the letter, lawyers highlight the Supreme Court 1978 case Oliphant vs. Suquamish Indian Tribe, in which it was found that Indian tribal councils do not, unless specifically authorized by Congress, have jurisdiction to try non-Native Americans for crimes committed while present on reservations.
“Since the Court’s decision in Oliphant was not based on an interpretation of the Constitution, Congress maintains the authority to overrule the decision through legislation,” they wrote in their letter. “The Court in Oliphant said as much when it stated that tribal governments do not have the authority to prosecute non-Indian criminals ‘except in a manner acceptable to Congress.’”
The letter also highlights the Duro-fix legislation passed by Congress in 1991, when it overturned a decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court in Duro V. Reina, in which it was originally decided that tribal courts could not prosecute nonmember Native Americans.
The Senate version of the bill also adds a funding boost for Native Americans, implementing an extra $5 billion to be used for domestic violence protection, considering the level of sexual assault among the demographic.
Moving forward
In response Wednesday to concerns among conservatives over the new House version of the VAWA, key GOP female House members held a press conference to debunk claims that their new version was not a shot against women.
Rep. Kristi Noem did not address key Native American, LGBT or immigration provisions omitted from the House bill, but did insinuate that the Senate version was drafted with a political undertone — and that the House bill included increased funding in needed areas.
“In 1994 our nation made a commitment with the Violence Against Women Act and for nearly two decades this law has been a testament to that commitment that we made,” she said. “Unfortunately, there are some in Congress who would like to make this a political play. They’d like to make cheap shots and try to politicize it in an election year.”
But those in favor of the bill say that isn’t so, citing the need to protect Native Americans, immigrant women and eliminate discrimination against those involved in same-sex couples seeking domestic violence services.
Noem stated the House version would provides avenues for VAWA funding to be more directly dispersed to victims. She also pointed out provisions in the bill would generate a more efficient method of processing rape kits, where are used to determine the identity of attackers.
Republican senators, specifically Sen. John Cornyn, Texas, is seeking to add an amendment to the VAWA Senate bill that would include funding to process roughly 400,000 rape kits which are currently backed up in the system. Noem said those women deserve to know who their perpetrators are.
The Senate version of the bill was set to be debated Thursday on the floor. The House version could be due for a vote May 14. The Obama Administration has stated that it sides with the first Senate version of the bill, leading experts to believe it could not make it into law without the Senate version provisions.
A post on the White House webpage gives an impassioned plea for the need of specific provisions in the VAWA Senate bill, saying “Native American women suffer from violent crime at some of the highest rates in the United States.”
“Congress can close this jurisdictional gap in the criminal justice system by supporting the Leahy-Crapo (VAWA) bill and providing tribes with the authority to hold offenders accountable for their crimes against Native American women, regardless of the perpetrators race,” the website reads.