Confronted with mounting questions about her sponsorship of a bill that would transfer jurisdiction over the Shivwits Band of Utah Paiutes reservation to the State of Utah, Congresswoman Celeste Maloy appears confused as to what her legislation actually does.

Maloy’s bill would impose a profound change on the Shivwits reservation without the vote of tribal members required by current federal law. The bill, HR3073, clearly mandates that “the State of Utah shall have jurisdiction” over any civil cause of action involving the Shivwits that arises anywhere on their reservation.

In her latest newsletter, Maloy claims that this mandatory language would somehow give the Shivwits people an “option to use state or federal courts.” Anyone who reads the bill can see that is either a bald-faced lie or Maloy has no idea what the bill she is sponsoring says.

Instead of giving the Shivwits an “option to use state or federal courts,” HR3073 eliminates that option by forcibly transferring jurisdiction to the State without the Shivwits’ consent. This is no small matter — it is a profound deprivation of the Shivwits’ right to vote and retain jurisdiction over their trust land, rights guaranteed to all Native American tribes.

Freedom from state control is the most essential characteristic of an Indian reservation. The reason we have Indian reservations in the first place is to reserve what remains of a tribe’s ancestral land from state control and hold it in trust for the tribal members under the protections of Tribal and federal law. The decision to relinquish jurisdiction is so profound that it cannot be made by a tribe’s governing council, not even by unanimous vote. Federal law — 25 U.S.C. § 1322-1326 — establishes that a state can only acquire jurisdiction over tribal trust land through the consent of a majority of the tribal members in a special election held for that purpose.

If enacted into law, Maloy’s bill would eliminate that essential protection for the Shivwits. As a retired attorney with some experience reading statutes, it is difficult to understand how a congresswoman could not know the difference between “shall” and “may with the consent of the tribal members by majority vote.”

Maloy’s constituents are questioning why she is sponsoring a special federal law to deprive the Shivwits of the right to vote that every other Native American tribe enjoys. All of southern Utah lies on what was once Paiute land.

Why deny the little 311-member Shivwits band the right to control what little remains of their ancestral land and water? If this is really as beneficial for the Shivwits people as Maloy claims, why can’t they vote on it like the members of every other Native American tribe can do?

The answer is obvious.

Although Maloy contends that HR3073 doesn’t “greenlight any particular project or development,” it is part and parcel of the plans of a private equity firm, Reef Capital Partners, to build its controversial Black Desert golf development in Ivins. Black Desert already has a 19-hole PGA golf course, but Reef Capital wants to build three additional courses, an airport and other facilities for its resort guests and PGA events. However, with 14 existing golf courses in a drought-stricken area, the county water district will not provide water for new courses. To circumvent the county’s restrictions, Reef Capital seems to have set its sights on the Shivwits’ land and water.

It seems Reef Capital wants a congressional guarantee of state jurisdiction to protect its own interests. But the Shivwits people have made it clear they don’t want Reef Capital’s golf development or state jurisdiction. They certainly don’t need them for economic development because, like other Native American tribes, they are already achieving economic development on their trust land without a sweeping waiver of jurisdiction.

Maloy’s bill would be completely unnecessary if the Shivwits people wanted to waive jurisdiction. They could do that right now by majority vote. This bill would eliminate the Shivwits’ right to vote and forcibly transfer jurisdiction to the State whether the Shivwits want it or not. Reef Capital is paying a full-time lobbyist from Virginia to push HR3073 through Congress.

Maloy claims she introduced HR3073 at the request of the band’s “leadership,” referring to a former band chairwoman who read legalistic testimony seemingly prepared by those lobbyists and lawyers. That chairwoman resigned after numerous grievances were filed against her; she has been barred from holding band office again for at least 10 years.

According to lobbyist’s disclosures, Reef Capital Partners is paying to push Maloy’s bill through Congress and transfer jurisdiction over the Shivwits reservation without a vote.

The Shivwits are in the process of electing a new chairperson. Instead of waiting for that election, Maloy is rushing HR3073 to a floor vote before it can occur.

Maloy should pull her sponsorship of HR3073 now, allow the Shivwits members to elect their new chairperson and let them decide for themselves by majority vote whether to relinquish jurisdiction over their reservation to the State of Utah.

Patricia O’Rorke is an attorney who began her career in Arizona with a firm representing tribal interests and later practiced civil and trial law in Salt Lake City for many years. She also served as a director of many public and community organizations, including the Central Utah Water Conservancy District and Salt Lake City’s Central Business Improvement District and Downtown Alliance. She is now retired in Ivins.

The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.