For Lumbee tribe, ‘the time has come’ to finally be federally recognized
by Lucas Thomae, Carolina Public Press March 10, 2025
Who gets to claim the title of American Indian? That is the question at the center of a fight over potential federal recognition for the indigenous Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina.
For more than a century, the Lumbee — with a claimed membership of 60,000 people concentrated in the southeastern part of the state — have fought for federal recognition and the benefits that come with it.
Those perks include health care funding, housing programs and, of course, the opportunity to establish casinos.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers have supported bills to grant federal recognition the past few congressional cycles, but up to this point none have made it all the way to the president’s desk to be signed into law.
That may soon change.
‘An issue of fairness’
During his first week in office, President Donald Trump made good on his campaign promise to support the Lumbee cause with a memo to the Department of the Interior directing them to draft a plan to grant full federal recognition.
Once completed, the directive will reverse a 1956 law that acknowledged the tribe as the “Lumbee Indians of North Carolina,” but denied them federal benefits that typically come with that recognition.
A note: Both the state and federal government, and many tribes themselves, use the term “American Indian” to refer to the indigenous people living in the United States.
Lumbee Chairman John Lowery spent a week in Washington, D.C. last month as consultations for the carrying out of the president’s memorandum began. Lowery told Carolina Public Press he left the U.S. capital feeling “cautiously optimistic” about finally achieving full federal recognition.
“We have very strong support from both sides of the aisle,” Lowery said. “At the end of the day, whether Democrat or Republican, individuals understand that this is an issue of fairness.”
It’s also an issue that is somewhat complicated.
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the only federally-recognized tribe in the state, vehemently oppose granting the Lumbee the same statusthrough congressional action rather than the typical application process carried out by the Department of the Interior. In fact, Cherokee opposition to Lumbee recognition dates back to at least 1910.
Principal Chief Michell Hicks, the leader of the Eastern Band, told CPP that such a move would be a “slippery slope” that encourages illegitimate tribal groups to falsely claim federal benefits.
“It is a dangerous decision that will open up the floodgates to others wanting to do the same thing,” he said.
Lumbee lineage holds the key
The Cherokee are an indigenous people who once populated parts of what is now North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. They had long been a sovereign nation with their own government prior to European colonization of the region.
Today, the Eastern Band is one of three federally-recognized Cherokee tribes and the only one not located in Oklahoma. They are descendants of a small group of Cherokee people who remained in North Carolina after the U.S. government forcibly relocated them to reservations in the 1830s.
By the mid-1900s, the Eastern Band had organized into its own tribal nation fully acknowledged by the federal government. More than 16,000 Cherokee people live and work on their reservation lands which stretch across Swain, Jackson, Cherokee and Graham counties near the western tip of the state.
The Lumbee, on the other hand, have a history that is less cohesive. Their story is one of mixed cultures and ambiguous identity.
Even the name “Lumbee” is a modern construction, thought to have originated in the 1950s from the Lumber River that flows through the tribe’s claimed territory.
Since the 1880s, the group has petitioned Congress for federal recognition under names such as “Cherokee Indians of Robeson County” and “Croatan Indians” — a reference to a once-popular theory that they were descended from European settlers of “The Lost Colony” and nearby indigenous people.
Later research on the origin of the Lumbee suggests they are descended from a mix of people with indigenous, European and African heritage.
That lineage matters because the federal acknowledgement process requires petitioners to prove they are descended from a “historical Indian tribe” or a combination of historical tribes that function as one political entity.
The “historical tribe” requirement has proven to be an obstacle for the Lumbee since the U.S. government confirmed their eligibility to apply for federal acknowledgement in 2016.
Still, Lowery said his tribe’s indeterminate origins shouldn’t be disqualifying. They’ve long inhabited the sandhills and enjoyed a good relationship with the state. “The time has come” for the Lumbee to be recognized by a government that has consistently overlooked them.
“The fact that we are still here centuries after colonial expansion, centuries after war and disease,” he said, “should be celebrated.”
Membership has its privileges
Hicks said he supports the Lumbee’s right to go through the federal acknowledgement process, but opposes any congressional action that would allow them to circumvent that procedure. It’s a matter of protecting their own cultural identity, Hicks explained, pointing to “hundreds of groups” claiming to be Cherokee tribes.
“There is this merits-based process that was established because of the need to really dive into the claims of any group,” he said.
Some proponents of Lumbee recognition dismiss that argument. They say that the Cherokee simply want to protect their stake in the gaming industry, which legally can only take place on native lands.
A few years ago the tribe fought and lost a legal battle with the Catawba Indian Nation — a federally-recognized tribe in South Carolina — who planned to build a competing casino outside of Charlotte.
If the Lumbee were to become federally recognized, they might be another competitor in the high-stakes casino business.
However, both Lowery and Hicks downplayed the potential of a Lumbee-run casino as a reason for their political feud.
“The Lumbee opening a casino in a different region is unlikely to impact (our) gaming operations and is not the basis of our opposition,” Hicks said in a statement. “However, the fact that the Lumbee could establish an Indian gaming facility without even being able to specify which tribe they descend from illustrates the broader stakes for communities across America. If federal recognition is granted without requiring verifiable historical evidence, any group claiming to be a tribe could gain recognition — and with it, the ability to open a casino in any town in America.”
Meanwhile, Lumbee leaders in state government have lambasted Hicks and the Eastern Band for their “superiority complex” since discussion about recognition once again started to heat up.
A December letter penned by N.C. Commission of Indian Affairs chairman Ricky Burnett, a member of the Lumbee Tribe, censured Hicks for “statements made by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians that question the legitimacy of other tribal nations.”
“These actions reflect a troubling pattern of behavior in which the (Eastern Band) has positioned itself as an oppressor toward fellow tribes in North Carolina and neighboring states,” according to the letter.
In February, Lumbee Chairman John Lowery spent a week in Washington, D.C. as work began to finally grant the tribe full federal recognition. Lowery said he left feeling “cautiously optimistic. At the end of the day, whether Democrat or Republican, individuals understand that this is an issue of fairness.” Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina / Provided
Hicks said he was “offended” by the accusations.
“I don’t think it’s the position of any commission to basically take a political stance against the only federally-recognized tribe and the largest tribe east of the Mississippi,” he said.
Soon after, state Rep. Jarrod Lowery, the brother of the Lumbee chairman and the only Native American legislator in the General Assembly, criticized Gov. Josh Stein for appointing Hicks to his administration’s transition team.
The Republican legislator from Robeson County also introduced a bill last month that would redistribute money from an education fund composed primarily from the Eastern Band’s gaming revenues to the seven other state-recognized tribes.
As Griffin case drags on, some NC voters can’t help but feel ‘targeted’
by Sarah Michels, Carolina Public Press March 21, 2025
RALEIGH — In less than 24 hours, Danielle Brown left an out-of-state bus tour, came home to North Carolina to cast a vote in the 2024 general election and then boarded a plane to rejoin the tour. Now, her vote is one of nearly 67,000 ballots contested by Republican Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin as part of his attempt to overturn his apparent loss to Democratic Judge Allison Riggs for a seat onthe state Supreme Court.
On Election Night, Griffin appeared to be the victor. However, as provisional and absentee ballots were counted, he slowly lost his lead. By the time election staff tallied official results during their canvasses, Riggs was up by a mere 734 votes. Two recounts confirmed Riggs’ win.
Griffin then filed a series of election protests attempting to discard tens of thousands of ballots from the count, on grounds that the State Board of Elections illegally allowed certain categories of voters to cast a ballot. In the past four months, Griffin’s election protests have journeyed through state and federal courts.
On Friday, a panel of N.C. Court of Appeals judges heard the latest arguments and will decide whether a lower state court was right to affirm the State Board of Elections’ dismissal of Griffin’s protests.
Attorneys for Griffin, Riggs and the State Board covered much of the same territory of the past few months. Their arguments centered on whether the election rules the board established for the 2024 general election were the correct ones, and if they weren’t, whether the law allows Griffin to retroactively remove votes from the count.
Whatever the appellate court decides will be subject to appeal. The case will most likely return to the state Supreme Court, which previously paused election certification until the case is resolved but declined to take it up early.
What Griffin is disputing
Griffin is challenging ballots cast by three categories of voters.
First, he contests the ballots of over 60,000 people Griffin alleges were improperly registered to vote because they didn’t provide either a driver’s license or social security number under a faulty voter registration form. The State Board argues that voters who don’t have these numbers have to prove their identity at the polls, so their votes are valid.
Second, Griffin seeks to remove votes of about 5,500 military and overseas voters who did not include a photo ID with their absentee ballots. He argues that the State Board misinterpreted state law by allowing this category of voters to skip voter ID requirements.
Third, Griffin identified about 500 voters, who he calls “Never Residents,” who don’t live in North Carolina but claim inherited residency through a special state law provision. He argues that the state law violates the North Carolina Constitution’s residency requirements, and therefore, those votes should not count.
‘Taking it very personally’
As the case continues, more voters and organizations are getting involved. Carolina Public Press spoke to several of them.
Brown, a national co-field director for Black Voters Matter, found out that she was on the list through a text from an organization called Democracy NC. Her county board of elections told her they didn’t have her driver’s license on file, but she knows she did everything right.
Black voters like Brown are twice as likely as white voters to be in the largest Griffin challenge. Other voters of color and younger voters also disproportionately appear on his protest lists, according to an analysis conducted by Western Carolina University political science professor Chris Cooper.
“I’m taking it very personally because I do feel as if I am being targeted as a Black woman that works for a Black organization that seeks to empower voting across the country,” Brown said. “You’re making voters feel as if their vote does not count or they have to fight for their vote to count when that’s not democracy.”
Latino voters faced hurdle after hurdle this election, said Veronica Aguilar of El Pueblo, an advocacy group for that community.
The new voter ID law presents more of an obstacle for Latino voters and other voters of color than their white counterparts. Voter education tends to be in English, which may hinder the Latino community from staying updated on election rules. Also, many naturalized immigrants come from countries with different voting laws and election processes which may present a learning curve.
Additionally, Aguilar claims that Latino voters experienced voter intimidation during the election, including a proliferation of “unnecessary” signs telling them that if they aren’t citizens, they can’t vote. U.S. citizenship is required to even register to vote, she said, so this was an effort to make naturalized citizens “question whether or not they could vote.”
The fact that Latino voters disproportionately appear on the protest lists aligns with political rhetoric that immigrants “don’t belong” in the U.S., Aguilar said.
“So even if it is not intentional, it is contributing to the narrative that Latino immigrants, naturalized citizens in this country aren’t allowed to participate in our processes and that their voices don’t count,” she said.
Voters of color aren’t the only ones feeling targeted.
Carrie Conley is a military spouse living in Italy. Last year, she requested her absentee ballot through the Guilford County Board of Elections just like she had done seven times before.
Nobody ever asked for her to attach a photo ID to her absentee ballot because under the State Board’s interpretation, North Carolina law doesn’t require voter identification for military and overseas voters.
Conley heard about the Griffin case on social media, found the list and discovered her name was on it. However, none of her fellow military spouses were on the list. She soon learned that ballots from only four Democratic-leaning counties — Durham, Forsyth, Buncombe and Guilford — were being challenged as part of the photo ID protest.
“Why these four counties? Why now?” Conley asked. “It just makes me very upset that this is happening in my state.”
From 1986 to 2013, Debra Blanton served as Cleveland County’s election director. She loved her job and what it meant to voters to know that their vote would be “sacred,” “safe” and “counted correctly.”
Griffin’s attempt to retroactively take away some North Carolinians’ votes “just really raised the hairs on the back of my neck,” Blanton said.
Blanton is one of 42 former election directors who filed an amicus brief, or “friend of the court” argument, meant to offer courts additional insight.
Election directors, current or former, rarely speak publicly on issues. They make a point of being professionally nonpartisan. But Blanton has never seen anyone try to retroactively remove voters from the rolls like this before.
“It is foreign to me that anybody thinks they could attempt to do that,” she said. “There are rules in place, and the rules in place were in effect for this election.”
By the rules?
What were the rules in place for the 2024 general election?
That’s the question lawyers from Griffin, Riggs and the State Board of Elections’ teams tried to answer Friday for a panel of three N.C. Court of Appeals judges.
Were they rules the State Board established for the election, based on their interpretation of state law and the North Carolina constitution? Or were their interpretations incorrect, deeming those rules invalid?
Griffin lawyer Craig Schaeur argued in favor of the latter. The State Board can’t decide to conduct elections based on rules that violate state law and the North Carolina Constitution, he said.
“To be clear, this case is not about changing laws after the election,” Schaeur said. “It’s a case about enforcing the laws that were already on the books before the election.”
State Board lawyer Nick Brod disagreed. If the State Board’s interpretations were incorrect, there was plenty of opportunity to challenge them before the election, he argued.
The state law allowing so-called “Never Residents” to inherit the residency of their parents in order to vote was passed unanimously in 2011 and has been enforced in over 40 elections since, he explained.
The photo ID exception for overseas and military voters has been in place for five elections, he added. And the voter registration form issue that may have led to missing drivers license and social security numbers on file is currently being litigated in a federal lawsuit to apply to future elections.
“From the voters’ perspective,” Brod said, “they did everything that they were asked to do in order to cast a ballot.”
Judges Fred Gore, Toby Hampson and John Tyson will decide the case. Gore and Tyson are Republicans and Hampson is a Democrat. If the panel spits 2-1, then the case may be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
SUMMARY: The state court of appeals heard arguments regarding an unresolved election for a North Carolina Supreme Court seat, involving Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin. Griffin is challenging over 60,000 votes, primarily from Democratic voters, asserting they should be disqualified due to missing information in the voter registration database. He lost the election to Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs by more than 700 votes after two recounts. The state elections board and a trial court have already ruled against Griffin’s claims. A decision from the appeals court is expected soon, and the losing party may appeal to the state supreme court.
The race has been unresolved since November because Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin sued the North Carolina Board of …
www.thecentersquare.com – By David Beasley | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-03-21 11:40:00
(The Center Square) – Fully funding the state retirement plan is not within the budget proposal of the North Carolina governor, says state Treasurer Brad Briner.
“We are disappointed the governor is proposing for only the second time in 83 years to not fully fund our state’s retirement system,” Briner said in a statement. “This proposal sent to lawmakers today would create a $206 million shortfall in the funds for our retirees over the next two years.”
Briner expressed confidence that legislative leaders will “take the needs of the state’s retirees more seriously.”
The governing board of the state retirement system recommended in January that the state increase its contribution to the pension plan by $44.3 million for fiscal year 2026. About 371,932 people receive state retirement payments.
Gov. Josh Stein’s office disputes Briner’s allegation that the budget proposal fails to fully fund the retirement plan.
“The governor respects and values retired state employees, which is why his recommended budget more than fully funds the state retirement system,” Stein’s office said in a statement. “Governor Stein’s proposal holds the state’s contribution rate steady, which will provide over $380 million more than what actuaries say is necessary in FY 2025-26, and over $551 million more than recommended for the biennium. Governor Stein is committed to protecting the retirement benefits of these employees who have given so much to our state.”
However, Briner maintains that keeping the state’s contribution rate the same is actually a decrease.
“Under the process long used for measuring these types of proposals, the governor’s budget proposal calls for $0 in new money” for the retirement system, Briner’s office said in a statement. “That is because it would make no increase to the contribution rate for already-promised benefits” as a percentage of salaries.
According to Briner’s office, the state retirement plan’s investment performance has lagged other states for decades. The result has been that the state’s contributions to pensions have doubled in the last decade, costing taxpayers the equivalent of $2 billion.
Briner has proposed creation of a board of professional experts appointed by the Legislature, treasurer and governor to manage the retirement system’s investments. The board would be chaired by the state treasurer. Forty-seven other states have similar boards, according to Briner.
