Call to Action: Arizona HB 2852: Addressing Unintended Consequences for Arizona Tribal Members and Nations

House Bill 2852 (HB 2852), introduced in the Arizona Legislature,was approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with a unanimous 6-0 vote. One member chose not to vote. The bill is currently under consideration.

In its current form, this bill seeks to amend sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes related to driver’s licenses and nonoperating identification cards. Among its provisions, the bill would allow for a distinguishing mark to be placed on state-issued identification to indicate that an individual is an enrolled member of an American Indian Tribe, provided they submit satisfactory proof of tribal enrollment. While the bill's intent may be to recognize Tribal identity, its potential unintended consequences raise serious concerns regarding discrimination, privacy, and tribal sovereignty.

Key Considerations with HB 2852

1. Sovereignty: American Indian tribes assert their sovereignty by establishing membership criteria and issuing tribal identification, affirming their authority to govern their communities. Because each tribe determines its own enrollment policies, tribal IDs vary significantly in format and content. Requiring proof of enrollment for a state-issued ID mark risks compelling the disclosure of sensitive enrollment data, potentially undermining tribal self-determination and encroaching on the sovereign rights of tribes to regulate their own membership and governance.
2. Implementation: Variation across tribal IDs makes them susceptible to misuse, as state officials would presumably arbitrarily assess their validity based on appearance or perceived legitimacy (no criteria is given in the bill's current form). Key questions remain: Who determines what constitutes “satisfactory proof of tribal citizenship”—the state, the licensing department, or another entity? Does this requirement apply solely to citizens of Arizona’s 22 tribes or extend to all 572 federally recognized tribes–there is a large population of tribally enrolled citizens in Arizona who are not members of the 22 Arizona tribes. How will this designation impact compliance with Real ID requirements for travel and access to federal buildings? Additionally, who bears the responsibility for submitting proof—the individual or the tribal nation?
3. Privacy: This bill raises serious privacy concerns by compelling American Indians to disclose their tribal identity in situations where they may prefer not to. This further heightens concerns regarding Tribal Nations' inherent authority over the collection, ownership, and application of their own data, which is a fundamental aspect of their right to self-governance.
4. Potential for Discrimination and Profiling: Instead of fostering cultural recognition, this bill could unintentionally subject Native American individuals to greater scrutiny and racial profiling. In Canada, Indigenous individuals have frequently reported experiencing discrimination, mistreatment by law enforcement, and bias from businesses and government agencies when presenting their government-issued identification cards. Given these documented cases, Arizona faces a significant risk of replicating similar patterns of systemic discrimination if this provision is enacted.

Recommendations:

Rather than imposing a distinguishing mark on state-issued IDs, lawmakers could revise HB 2852 to better support tribal sovereignty and self-determination. Potential amendments could include:

• Enhanced Recognition of Tribal IDs: This bill could mandate Arizona state agencies and businesses to fully recognize tribal identification cards for all official verification purposes. Effective implementation requires acknowledgment of the inherent rights of Native nations and their distinct political relationship with the U.S. government, independent of racial or ethnic classification. American Indian and Tribal nations are defined in law as sovereign political entities, not racial groups, with a distinct legal and political relationship with the United States, which extends to states and intra-governmental jurisdictions. Tribal sovereignty is affirmed in the U.S. Constitution, treaties, and numerous federal laws and policies, positioning them within the broader framework of the United States' family of governments. Central to this relationship is the federal trust responsibility, which obligates the U.S. government to uphold treaty commitments. As a result, Tribal nations and Tribal citizens have a unique political status.
• Outreach and Education: American Indians hold a unique sovereign status as citizens of their tribal nations, the United States, and their respective states. To support this recognition, the bill could also require training and outreach programs to educate officials, law enforcement, and businesses on the legal validity, cultural and political significance, and sovereign authority of tribal IDs. Such measures would reinforce respect for tribal governance, self-determination, and the legitimacy of tribal identification systems.
• Clear Benefits: To effectively support Native American communities, the bill would benefit from transparent and concise language specifying the advantages associated with the tribal designation. In today’s evolving policy landscape, it is crucial that legislative changes provide measurable benefits to citizens of tribal nations. Greater clarity in the bill’s language could help address potential concerns, ensure its intended impact, and foster broader bipartisan support.

As Arizona HB 2852 advances in the legislative process, its current language raises concerns about discrimination, privacy, and tribal sovereignty. Arizona Tribal Citizens and Arizona Tribal Nations are encouraged to have their voices heard and participate in the process before this bill is passed to uphold Tribal Sovereignty and address the needs of Arizona’s Native communities.

Call To Action: Be Part of the Process and Submit Comments

If you would like to submit a comment on HB 2852 with the Arizona Legislature, follow the procedure outlined in the Request to Speak (RTS) manual. Additionally, comments may be submitted directly to state representatives. Engaging with legislators offers an opportunity to provide valuable input as the bill moves through the legislative process. Providing comments serves as a critical mechanism to ensure that policymakers consider the perspectives of Tribal Nations and their citizens, reinforcing the principles of representation and informed decision-making.