State versus reservation ‘citizenship’ is confusing
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
No doubt there is plenty of confusion regarding the CSKT Water Compact. I’m confused myself.
On the one hand, the State of Montana tells me I am a state citizen and then applies applicable state taxes to me and my property.
On the other hand, by accepting the definition of “Flathead Indian Reservation” currently contained in the compact, as “All land within the boundaries of the Indian reservation established under the July 16, 1855 Treaty of Hellgate…notwithstanding of the issuance of any patent, and including all rights of way…,” the state is telling me I am not a state citizen but rather a “reservation citizen.”
I’m confused because I see in Art. I of the State’s Constitution (which I thought state policy was supposed to follow) that “all lands owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes shall remain under the absolute control and jurisdiction of the Congress.” If “all land” within the boundaries of the reservation is “reservation status,” how is it that the state has authority to tax and regulate me and my property?
Scott Kerr
Moiese
