Status as a Minority

It was not possible, however, for the Commission to conduct moreareas2014voting, public education, administration of justice, public welfare,housing, employment, and public accommodations. Though the degreeof denial varies, the Commission has found evidence of current or recentdiscrimination in each area.

It was not possible, however, for the Commission to conduct morethan a limited review of the extent to which the deprivation of civilrights prevails. A field investigation was made, tribal delegations wereinterviewed, and conferences were held with experts on Indian affairs.Conferences on Indian problems were also held by State advisory committees. While no testimony was taken under oath, evidence obtainedfrom the activities described above show sufficiently widespread denialsof civil rights to warrant concern and fuller inquiry.

The 1960 census reported on five racial minorities. In order of population size, they were as follows: Negroes, 18,871,831; AmericanIndians, 523,591; Japanese, 464,332; Chinese, 237,292; and Filipinos,176,310. Indians are thus the second largest "racial" minority in theUnited States. As a minority, Indians fall into three general categories2014reservation, nonreservation, and off reservation. The civilrights problems of the latter, sometimes referred to as "relocated" Indians, are not specially treated in this study. There is little reason todoubt however that this group suffers many of the denials inflicted onother Indians.

There is some evidence of discrimination, albeit sometimes only on aspotty basis, in all of the 25 States with substantial groups of Indians.The degree of hostility in communities adjoining Indian reservations isusually in inverse proportion to the distance of the locality from reservation boundaries. The larger cities are often too far away from reservations to provide ready access to reservation Indians and yet big enough,in most cases, to absorb a sparse Indian population. To be sure, theIndian still runs into discrimination in cities, but it does not seem to beas staunch a kind as that which finds expression in smaller communitiesadjacent to reservations.

In the recent past, signs, such as "Indians Not Allowed," were commonplace in many small communities near reservations. Most of these

have disappeared, but the prejudice they expressed remains. For example, the city commission of Chamberlain, a small community inSouth Dakota 60 miles from a reservation, passed a resolution in 1954stating that its citizens were "opposed to the city being made an Indiantown and are opposed to having Indians in our schools or living inunsanitary conditions about the city . . ." 1

Hostility is sometimes found in bordering towns even where the

Indian population is large and potentially holds the balance of politicalpower, as in South Dakota where thousands of destitute Indians resideoff reservations.

Because of poverty, lack of education and, in some cases, uncleanliness and poor dress, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether thehostility is directed against Indians as a race or the Indian as an individual. Moreover, Indians tend to keep to themselves and do not venture into areas where they are likely to experience discrimination. Consequently the Indian often may not know whether he will encounterdiscrimination if he seeks to broaden the scope of his community existence. Those who were interviewed frequently could not state whetherhotels or restaurants refused admission to Indians. Their people had notsought to patronize "all white" establishments and therefore did notknow whether service was available on an equal basis.

The right to vote

As a citizen of the United States and of the State wherein he residesthe Indian has a right to vote which is subject to the same qualifications and limitations imposed on other citizens. By virtue of the I5thamendment, this right is protected against denial by reason of race orcolor. For the most part, today's Indian does not suffer under anywidespread or substantial restrictions upon his exercise of suffrage.There are no statistics available for nonreservation Indians, but in 1956,the latest election for which figures are available, of the 143,078 Indiansover 21 years of age living on reservations, 57,818 were qualified tovote and 25,582 actually cast a ballot in the previous general Stateelection.2

The right to vote, however, did not come automatically. In 1938, 14

years after Indians were made citizens, 7 States still enforced statutes and constitutional provisions which denied Indians the franchise.The justification for the refusal invariably rested on one or all of threegrounds: that Indians on reservations were members of tribes with aconsiderable amount of sovereignty independent of State governments;that the Federal Government maintained a high degree of control andsupervision over Indians; and that Indians were not required to assumethe same burdens of citizenship (i.e., pay real property taxes) and didnot have the same interest in local political affairs. By 1947, however,

the number of States refusing the franchise was reduced to two2014Arizona and New Mexico2014each with large Indian populations. As aresult of judicial decisions, both States withdrew their prohibitions inI948. 3 (There was a recent flurry in New Mexico, however, when adefeated candidate brought suit contesting the right of the NavajoIndians to vote on reservations for State offices. The suit has not yetbeen decided.) 3 * In 1956, Utah revived a statute which, in effect, prohibited Indians living on reservations from voting. The statute provided that Indians were not to be considered residents of Utah forvoting purposes unless prior residence in the State, other than on areservation, had been established. In a class action, Preston Allen, areservation Indian, brought suit in the Utah Supreme Court contendingthat the statute deprived Indians of the right to vote because of racein violation of the i4th and i5th amendments. 4 The court denied thecontention and upheld the validity of the statute on the ground thatthe separate classification of Indians was reasonable. Said the court: 5

This conclusion is based upon their continued tribal sovereignty; the

influence and control, actual and potential, of the Federal Government over them; the fact that they enjoy the benefits of Governmental services without bearing commensurate tax burden, and arenot as conversant with nor as interested in Government as othercitizens.

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari. However,a motion to vacate the judgment was granted upon stipulation of counsel,that the case had become moot. 6 Utah had repealed its statute, andexpressly provided that residence on an Indian reservation should notresult in loss of voting rights.

Such on and off attempts to restrict or challenge the right of Indiansto vote arise, in part, from the irritation occasioned by awareness ofthe Indian's partial exemption from State legal processes. The 1959case of Williams v. Lee 7 is an example. In that case, a white tradersued a Navajo Indian in an Arizona State court to collect a debt forgoods sold. The Navajo contested the suit on the ground that the tribalcourt and not the State court had jurisdiction since the transactionwhich gave rise to the suit occurred on the Navajo Reservation. Ajudgment was nonetheless entered in behalf of the white trader andaffirmed on appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. The U.S. SupremeCourt reversed, however, on the ground that Arizona had no jurisdictionover Indians on the reservation even where the transaction was betweena white man and an Indian.

The decision became the subject of heated discussions throughout Arizona, culminating in a formal opinion issued by the State AttorneyGeneral that Indians could not vote on reservations because they were

not amenable to the laws of the State. 8 The Attorney General reasonedthat law and order could not be maintained at polling places on reservations and ballot boxes could not be protected against stuffing. Legislationwas introduced to remove all polling places from reservations.Because of the vastness of the Indian land, the removal of polling placeswould have disenfranchised all but a few of the reservation Indians.The legislation did not pass, however.

At the present time, most, if not all, of the legal obstacles specificallybarring Indians from voting have been removed. And Indian leadersas well as officers of National Indian associations are of the opinion thatthe right is generally secure both on and off the reservation. The fewstumbling blocks that do remain are of a more general nature. In afew States, Indians have been inhibited from large scale participation inthe voting process by the poll tax and the literacy test. The latter maybe a cause of the low Indian registration in States with literacy tests sincesome reports indicate that the Indian literacy rate approximates 50 percent. 9 The rate of illiteracy is of course in large part a product of theinadequate schooling of the older generation of Indians. It is not,however, the sole cause of Indian nonvoting. Two related factors whichare advanced by many persons, are the Indian's intimate concern withtribal affairs, and his indifference to the white man's politics. Moreover, the Indian often recognizes the Bureau of Indian Affairs as the"government," and seeks what protection, guidance and good he canfrom its local and Washington representatives. Such factors as thesecombine to produce occasional extreme examples of seeming politicalapathy. One, taken at random, is the case of the Choctaws of Mississippi. Of 1,278 adults on reservations, only 27 were eligible to vote andonly 9 voted in I956. 10

In recent years some Indians appear to have taken long strides in the

use of the ballot and have thereby increased their political effectiveness.In New Mexico the percentage of Indian registered voters increasedsubstantially between 1952 and 1956, largely...