Event Recap: Conference on Democracy in Indian Country Examines Voting Rights and Freedom of the Press

A Responsibility to Indigenous Nations 

The conference opened with remarks from Randall Akee (Native Hawaiian), Director of the Harvard Kennedy School Project on Indigenous Governance and Development, and Larry Wright, Jr. (Ponca Tribe of Nebraska), Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians. 

The opening discussion situated the conference within the broader responsibility of institutions working with Indigenous nations. The Project on Indigenous Governance and Development embraces its responsibility to advance the self-determination, self-governance, and flourishing of Indigenous nations through its engagement in teaching, collaborative research, and informational programming.  

The opening remarks also placed contemporary voting-rights challenges in historical context. Although Native people gained U.S. citizenship through the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, this recognition did not immediately guarantee equal access to the ballot. States continued to impose restrictions on Native voting, and litigation has been necessary to establish voting rights in many jurisdictions. Today, scholars are documenting the persistent gap between the formal right to vote and Native people’s practical ability to exercise that right.  

The Pillars of Democracy—Freedom of the Press and Voting Rights 

Thomas E. Patterson, Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press at Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center, moderated the first panel, “Pillars of Democracy - Freedom of the Press and Voting Rights. Panelists included Regis Pecos (Cochiti Pueblo), former Governor of Cochiti Pueblo; Tex Hall (MHA Nation), former Chairman of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation and former President of NCAI; and Jodi Rave Spotted Bear (Mandan, Hidatsa and Mniconjou Lakota), founder and director of the Indigenous Media Freedom Alliance. 

The panel explored the relationship between a free press, accountable government, and democratic participation. Participants were asked to think about the relationship between editorial freedom and the ownership of news media outlets. 

Voting access within tribal nations emerged as another important issue. In-person voting requirements can create significant barriers for citizens living far from polling locations or facing transportation and work-related constraints, all of which negatively affect voter turnout in Indian Country. 

The panel also highlighted the relatively limited adoption of laws supporting freedom of information in Indian Country. Panelists noted that only a small number of the 575 federally recognized tribes have such laws or ordinances. Some examples of what this could look like include Muscogee Nation’s constitutional amendment to include freedom of information protections and the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde’s Freedom of Information Ordinance. 

The discussion emphasized that freedom of information policies can serve tribal citizens and tribal media by creating mechanisms for accessing government information and strengthening accountability. At the same time, panelists cautioned that transparency policies must be developed in ways that respect tribal sovereignty and cultural context.  Two themes were the importance of upholding traditional values (such as responsibility, accountability, and transparency) and the need to connect the next generation of leaders to those values. 

The conversation concluded by considering emerging challenges such as media literacy, artificial intelligence, and programs that connect youth and elders. 

Voting Rights, Obstacles, and the Current View 

Tova Wang, Director of Research Projects in Democratic Practice at the Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center, moderated the second panel, “Voting Rights, Obstacles, and the Current View.” Panelists were Jacqueline De León (Isleta Pueblo) of the Native American Rights Fund, Melissa Rogers of Claremont Graduate University, and Joseph Dietrich of Towson University. 

The panel focused on the practical barriers Native voters continue to encounter, including nontraditional addresses, identification requirements, vote-by-mail restrictions, lack of transportation, and the availability and location of polling places. 

One panelist noted that there is no federal requirement for counties to accept tribal identification cards or provide polling locations that meet the needs of tribal communities. 

Inequalities in distance to polling places is a key issue, as research has found that proximity to polling places is associated with voter turnout. This is a challenge for communities such as the Death Valley Reservation, which is 100 miles from the closest polling place. 

Other barriers discussed included language access, particularly in Alaska; cultural sensitivity in election administration; and the practical realities facing poll workers especially in remote, low-turnout, and/or historically disenfranchised areas. One observation captured the interconnected nature of these challenges: “If it’s hard for the poll worker, it’s hard for the voters.” The discussion also raised concerns about differences in poll-worker compensation, questions surrounding addresses that are not part of an existing voter precinct or are marked as pending, rejected ballots, and the potential removal of voters from county registration rolls without adequate notification. 

Solutions to the voting rights crisis in Indian Country include more and specialized civic education in Native communities and the potential for tribal colleges and other Indigenous institutions to serve as sites for voter registration and polls. Finally, the panel highlighted examples of policies and institutions that have expanded access, including New Mexico’s Native Election Commission, Nevada’s mandated on-reservation voting access, and Washington’s Native American Voting Rights Act, which allows tribal building addresses to be used in certain voting contexts. 

Throughout, panelists also highlighted some challenges in conducting research on Native voting access. Such work is expensive, requires sustained community support, and often must employ creative and/or specialized methods for outreach and the collection of truly representative data. Yet when these challenges are met, the research produced provides key evidence in the effort to dismantle barriers to Native voting access. 

Advocacy in Voting 

Jean Schroedel, Professor Emerita of Political Science at Claremont Graduate University, moderated the third panel, “Advocacy in Voting.” Panelists included Jaynie Parrish (Navajo Nation) of Arizona Native Vote, Casey Douma (Laguna Pueblo/Hopi-Tewa) of Douma Law, Lisa Finley-DeVille (MHA Nation) of Fort Berthold Protectors of Water and Earth Rights, and Michelle Sparck (Qissunamiut Tribe of Chevak) of Get Out the Native Vote. 

The session highlighted the range of strategies being used across Indian Country to support voter education, registration, participation, and advocacy. 

Rather than treating Native voter participation as a single national issue, the panel underscored the need for place-based approaches. Voting barriers differ across states and Native communities, making relationships with local organizations, tribal governments, advocates, and voters essential to effective civic engagement. 

One theme was the necessity of solidarity and the power of tribal nations to enact change through elections. Panelists emphasized that direct communication and grassroots campaigning with Native voters had boosted candidates for state and federal elected office to victory. 

While solidarity was highlighted as a strength of Native voters, panelists also took time to note that both the Native vote and Native voter advocacy are, and should remain, outside of traditional American partisan politics. While they acknowledged a perceived bias towards voting for Democratic politicians and policies, they stressed the importance of “showing up” for the candidates—from any party—who recognized Native voters as a critical demographic and showed up for tribes. Building on topics introduced earlier in the day, panelists discussed several specific ways federal and state decisions regarding mail-in voting and voter registration negatively impact Native voter turnout. They also highlighted how, with proper voter education and mobilization, the backlash to these disenfranchisement tactics can have the opposite of the intended effect and energize tribal citizens who might otherwise be unengaged.  

These cases point to the vital role of an independent press and voter advocacy: tribal citizens repeatedly demonstrated they would participate in elections when informed of the issues. Relatedly, panelists re-emphasized the need for a curriculum of voter education, and especially drew attention to the need to recruit community-based poll workers.  

These cases also underscore the value of sustained organizational infrastructure for getting out the Native vote. While challenges to tribal sovereignty and voting rights proved to be powerful motivators in individual elections, consistent voter turnout requires long-term planning and engagement. The formation of coalitions between different tribal voting advocacy groups was presented as a way to offset costs, as it allows smaller organizations to share the financial burden of critical resources, such as office space and employees. 

A key element of such long-term planning is the involvement of women and youth in voting education and advocacy, a strategy borne both from their influence in past elections and from the value of the investment for future generations. Educating youth in the election process—and training them to be voting rights advocates who work to close the gaps in ballot access that exist within Indian country—is an important defense of tribal sovereignty. 

Pathways Toward Increased Transparency and Press Access 

Symposium co-organizer Jodi Rave Spotted Bear moderated the final panel, “Pathways Towards Increased Transparency, Press Access.” Panelists included Chris Mercier (Grand Ronde), Tribal Council Vice Chair of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; Nizhoni Friesz (Northern Cheyenne Tribe), Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council member; Carina Miller (Warm Springs Tribe), former Tribal Council member; and Edgar Blatchford (Inupiaq and Yup'ik), a scholar, journalist, and former mayor of Seward, Alaska. 

The panel returned to questions of tribal transparency and press access, exploring how tribal nations can maintain cultural values while developing formal systems governing access to information. The discussion emphasized that transparency does not have to mean simply replicating non-Indigenous governance models. Instead, tribes can consider how principles of accountability, community responsibility, cultural values, and sovereignty can inform their own approaches to public information and press access. Speakers also noted the necessary balance between keeping citizens informed and maintaining confidentiality in cases where a failure to do so would compromise tribal sovereignty or the tribal government’s integrity. 

Panelists provided anecdotes from their professional careers of times when a lack of transparency or a codified relationship with the press caused conflict within their tribe. Without trusted and free press, tribal citizens may not have access to unbiased accounts of issues facing their communities. Instead, they may receive information directly from their leaders or community members which can be biased, misleading, and/or incomplete. 

The issue of social media as a news source was also raised. While social media is the primary news source for a growing portion of the population, it does not face the same level of editorial scrutiny as most news publications. Social media does provide tribal governments with a more direct form of communication to their constituents, but this can prove harmful in cases where said government bodies or officials are the source of misinformation. Without an independent press of similar outreach, social media can lead to a spread of unchecked misinformation.  

While panelists acknowledged the difficult but necessary balance between transparency and confidentiality, they also offered some solutions and best practices. First, the lack of laws and regulations regarding press freedom and freedom of information within many tribal governments was identified as an issue that needed to be addressed, as well as the lack of enforcement within some tribes with said legislation. While social media was listed as a potential vector of harm, it also provides an avenue for transparency.  Livestreaming or posting videos of government activities was mentioned as a particularly powerful tool for civic engagement and information. 

For tribal journalists and Native news organizations, access to information can be an important component of reporting on tribal government and community affairs. A functioning tribal press can provide citizens with information necessary for informed participation while also creating opportunities for governments to communicate directly with their communities. 

Looking Ahead 

These discussions demonstrated that voting rights and press freedom cannot be considered in isolation. Polling locations, identification requirements, transportation, addresses, language access, civic education, and election administration all influence whether citizens can participate in elections. At the same time, access to reliable information shapes whether participation can translate into meaningful governmental accountability. 

Ultimately, the conversations pointed toward a model of democracy in Indian Country rooted not only in access to institutions, but in tribal sovereignty, self-determination, cultural values, civic participation, transparency, and accountability.