Ruffey Rancheria is adamantly opposed to the State of California bill – AB 275. This is the letter that Chairman Gomes sent to the Honorable Mr. Ramos, sponsor of AB 275.
Re: Ruffey Rancheria’s Objection To Assembly Bill 275.
Dear Mr. Ramos:
On behalf of the Ruffey Rancheria, I am writing to object to AB 275 in its present form. The
definition of California Indian tribe proposed by this law will exclude the Ruffey Rancheria. The
repatriation of ancestors and cultural items as well as the protection of burial sites and sacred lands
is a priority for our tribal community, and the intent behind this legislation is laudable. Specific
language in the legislation, however, makes this bill truly devastating to us – and will have the
effect of disenfranchising our tribal voice in the process of repatriation and cultural site protection.
The membership of the Ruffey Rancheria consists of Shasta and Karuk Indian people who lived in
and around the town of Etna, California in northern California. In 1907, California Special Indian
Agent Charles Kelsey purchased land specifically for our community – one of the few instances in
which he cited the name of the community in the language of the land deed. Our tribal community
was one of the 41 tribes terminated under the provisions of the Federal California Indian Rancheria
Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-671; 72 Stat. 619). We continue to fight for the restoration of our
Federal recognition to this day, and we welcome the support of the State of California’s support in
our efforts.
AB 275 represents a step backward. Currently, it defines a non-federally recognized California
Indian tribe with a two-part test. A tribe would need to: 1) be “listed in the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Branch of Acknowledgement and Research petitioner list pursuant to Section 82.1 of Title 25 of the
Federal Code of Regulations”; and 2) be determined by the Native American Heritage Commission
that it is a tribe according to certain criteria, including: (a) “continuous identity as an autonomous
and separate tribal government”; (b) “holding itself out as a tribe”; (c) demonstrating “aboriginal
ties to the territory now known as the State of California” with a membership that “can demonstrate
lineal descent from the identifiable earlier groups that inhabited a particular tribal territory”;
(d) “recognition by the Indian community and non-Indian entities as a tribe”; and (e) demonstrating
membership criteria.
The California Indian Rancheria Act of 1958 terminated the Federal recognition of our tribal nation
and government. Terminated tribes can only be reinstated by an act of Congress, as we are
prohibited from participating in the Federal recognition process pursuant to Section 83.7(g) of Title
25 of the Federal Code of Regulations. As such, any proposed criterion that references the Federal
recognition process automatically means the exclusion of our tribal community.
We urge an appropriate amendment of AB 275 prior to passage, and we are eager to offer suggested
language for defining a California Indian tribe which does not result in the disenfranchisement of
our tribal nation.