Wyoming’s senators choose politics over protecting women

Congressional staffers gathered Tuesday to hear why the House should move to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act
Congressional staffers gathered Tuesday to hear why the House should move to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Mike Enzi and John Barrasso were among 20 GOP senators who voted against reauthorizing the VAWA. (Safiya Merchant/Medill — click to view)
Guest column by Kerry Drake
February 26, 2013

Battered Indian women are being used as pawns in a shameful political game being played by some Republicans in Congress.

Sadly, Wyoming’s U.S. Sens. Mike Enzi and John Barrasso joined 20 of their male GOP colleagues who are apparently more than willing to sacrifice the safety of women everywhere by voting against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which had received strong bipartisan support for nearly two decades.

Kerry Drake
Kerry Drake

Like nearly all of the men who voted against the bill, Barrasso claims he really loves the VAWA and would vote for it, if only it didn’t contain a “controversial and unconstitutional provision that allows Indian tribes to arrest, prosecute, and imprison non-Indians.”

It is a controversial bill, but only because Republicans like Barrasso and Enzi have widely distorted the impact of what it actually does.

I suspect the opposition to the VAWA reauthorization is primarily payback for the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) successful defense of the constitutionality of Obamacare and other alleged administration sins against conservatives. The tribal provision was the creation of the DOJ, which was searching for ways to reduce the shocking amount of domestic violence on reservations throughout the country.

According to the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), more than one-third of Indian women will be raped in their lifetimes, and more than 40 percent will be victims of domestic violence. On some reservations, Indian women are murdered at a rate more than 10 times the national average.

Here’s a key statistic to remember in any discussion of violence on reservations: The Department of Justice says non-Indians commit more than 85 percent of all violent crimes against Indian women.

Barrasso is well aware that the current system is dispensing precious little justice. As a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, he heard a presentation in July 2008 by then-Chairman Sen. Byron Dorgan, (D-North Dakota) that demonstrated just how wide the cracks in the system are.

From 2004-07, the federal government declined to prosecute an average of 62 percent of reservation crimes. Dorgan said nearly 75 percent of adult and child sex crimes and 50 percent of reservation homicides went unpunished in the federal system. That’s astounding and appalling.

If non-Indians are committing the vast majority of crimes against Indian women, and tribal courts are not allowed to prosecute non-Indians for such crimes, the burden falls to the county, state and federal courts. But it’s clearly a burden many prosecutors go out of their way to avoid.


“The counties don’t want to spend resources where they don’t have taxing authority, and for the U.S. Attorney’s Office domestic violence and even rape is not a priority,” University of Washington Law Professor Robert Anderson told the Seattle Times. “As a result there is a longstanding lack of enforcement in Indian Country. You don’t have law enforcement empowered to deal with these really serious crimes that take place on our local reservations.”

“The fact is non-tribal members repeatedly abuse these women and thumb their noses at them because there is nothing they can do,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington) bluntly told the newspaper. “It has given them a free pass.”

What about the opponents’ claim that the tribal provision of the VAWA is unconstitutional? It’s nothing more than hot air blowing from the far right.

The basis of the argument is the myth that tribal courts are not bound by the U.S. Constitution. In reality, tribal courts must provide defendants with the same constitutional rights that state courts do. Non-Indian defendants would be entitled to the full panoply of constitutional protections, including due-process rights and an indigent’s right to appointed counsel — at the tribe’s expense. That meets federal constitutional standards.

Opponents also claim that non-Indians would be subject to prosecution for all crimes on reservations, but that’s not true. The law would only apply to crimes of domestic violence, date violence or violation of protection orders. A defendant also must have a connection to the tribe, by either living or working on the reservation, or being a spouse or dating partner of a female member of the tribe.

Several senators who voted against the bill maintained Congress cannot expand tribal authority. But Congress’ power to define the contours of tribal jurisdiction is a matter of well-settled U.S. Supreme Court law. The NCAI notes that in 2004, the court in the U.S. vs. Lara held that the Constitution confers on Congress the power to enact legislation to limit restrictions on the scope of inherent tribal sovereign authority.

The Indian Civil Rights Act also requires that tribal courts provide all rights afforded to defendants in state and federal court. It’s time for the 22 male senators who voted against the VAWA to dream up a different excuse for their callous action and indifference to the plight of women.

Sen. Maria Cantwell

The new chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), took to the Senate floor prior to the passage of the VAWA bill to call for rising above partisan politics.

“This isn’t a debate on what is a good way to win votes somewhere in America,” she said. “This is about the life and death of women who need a better system to help prosecute those who are committing serious crimes against them.”

The bill now goes to the House, where a different version — one without the tribal provision — was approved in 2012. Wyoming Republican Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis voted for the bill then — in fact, she was a co-sponsor — but the GOP majority blocked consideration of the much stronger Senate version, and the measure died.

When Lummis votes this year, I hope she isn’t swayed by Wyoming’s two senators and their phony argument about the Senate bill’s constitutionality. The women on the Wind River Indian Reservation deserve greater protection from violence, and her vote can help make it happen in what is predicted to be a tough fight to get the VAWA reauthorization through the House.

— Kerry Drake of Casper has 37 years of experience as a reporter, columnist and editor at Wyoming’s two largest daily newspapers.

Guest columns are the signed perspective of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of WyoFile’s staff, board of directors or its supporters. WyoFile welcomes guest columns and op-ed pieces from all points of view. If you’d like to write a guest column for WyoFile, please contact Guy Padgett at guy@wyofile.com or Dustin Bleizeffer at dustin@wyofile.com.

REPUBLISH THIS COLUMN: For details on how you can republish this column or other WyoFile content for free, click here.

If you enjoyed this story and would like to see more quality Wyoming journalism, please consider supporting WyoFile: a non-partisan, non-profit news organization dedicated to in-depth reporting on Wyoming’s people, places and policy.

Veteran Wyoming journalist Kerry Drake has covered Wyoming for more than four decades, previously as a reporter and editor for the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle and Casper Star-Tribune. He lives in Cheyenne and...

Join the Conversation


Want to join the discussion? Fantastic, here are the ground rules: * Provide your full name — no pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish and expects commenters to do the same. * No personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats. Keep it clean, civil and on topic. *WyoFile does not fact check every comment but, when noticed, submissions containing clear misinformation, demonstrably false statements of fact or links to sites trafficking in such will not be posted. *Individual commenters are limited to three comments per story, including replies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Ms. Lummis also voted no, citing “Constitutional issues” ,,, go figure,,,???
    I know what the problem is with our Senators, but a woman voting no??

  2. Thanks, Kerry, for shining a light on this. It’s disgusting that our two senators cast those votes. You’re right to be appalled. I’m sure most Wyoming voters would be appalled if they only knew. In truth, I wouldn’t have known about it if not for this report. So, thanks again to you and to WyoFile. I’ll remember this when it’s time to vote.

  3. I am appalled that Barasso and Enzi are hiding from this issue. I have just also learned that whites on the reservation can not be ticketed for traffic violations either, so I see that it extends to violent felonies, also. No wonder woman aren’t safe in Wyoming and the ole boys network is alive and well. Not even our supposedly educated and cultured leaders give a damn about woman or crime in the state that doesn’t effect their families. I am sick about this shame. I will work harder to see that they are not reelected.

  4. Thank you for your informative and supportive editorial regarding the poor performance of Senator Enzi and Senator Barrasso. It is time the State of Wyoming “The Equality State” voters’ stood up and voted them out of office. They do not represent the values and the needs of our State and this particular topic really brings their limited education and vision to light. They do not represent me or anyone I know on most topics. They are in the pockets of corporations and the good ole boys.

    I sincerely hope that the citizens of this state wake up and really look at issues instead of voting the Republican ticket. We need real representation not puppets.