- Summary
- Actions
- Committee Votes
- Floor Votes
- Memo
- Text
- LFIN
- Chamber Video/Transcript
A05295 Summary:
BILL NO | A05295 |
  | |
SAME AS | SAME AS S03308 |
  | |
SPONSOR | Schiavoni |
  | |
COSPNSR | |
  | |
MLTSPNSR | |
  | |
Amd §2, add Art 11 §§170 - 173, Indian L | |
  | |
Provides for the reinstatement of state recognition and acknowledgement of the Montaukett Indian Nation; provides that the Montaukett Indian nation shall have a chief or sachem, three tribal trustees and a tribal secretary; provides for the qualification of voters; makes related provisions. |
A05295 Actions:
BILL NO | A05295 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02/12/2025 | referred to judiciary | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
03/18/2025 | reported | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
03/20/2025 | advanced to third reading cal.66 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
03/24/2025 | passed assembly | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
03/24/2025 | delivered to senate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
03/24/2025 | REFERRED TO INVESTIGATIONS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
06/05/2025 | SUBSTITUTED FOR S3308 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
06/05/2025 | 3RD READING CAL.1436 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
06/05/2025 | PASSED SENATE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
06/05/2025 | RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY |
A05295 Committee Votes:
Lavine | Aye | Tannousis | Aye | ||||||
Weprin | Aye | Walsh | Aye | ||||||
Braunstein | Aye | Brown | Aye | ||||||
Steck | Aye | Mikulin | Aye | ||||||
Seawright | Aye | Smith | Aye | ||||||
Walker | Aye | Molitor | Aye | ||||||
McMahon | Aye | ||||||||
Mitaynes | Aye | ||||||||
Rajkumar | Aye | ||||||||
Simon | Aye | ||||||||
Sayegh | Aye | ||||||||
Lunsford | Aye | ||||||||
Berger | Aye | ||||||||
Shimsky | Aye | ||||||||
Carroll | Aye | ||||||||
Go to top
A05295 Floor Votes:
Yes
Alvarez
Yes
Carroll P
Yes
Friend
Yes
Lee
Yes
Peoples-Stokes
Yes
Slater
Yes
Anderson
Yes
Carroll RC
Yes
Gallagher
ER
Lemondes
Yes
Pheffer Amato
Yes
Smith
Yes
Angelino
Yes
Chandler-Waterm
Yes
Gallahan
Yes
Levenberg
Yes
Pirozzolo
Yes
Smullen
Yes
Bailey
Yes
Chang
Yes
Gandolfo
Yes
Lucas
Yes
Pretlow
Yes
Solages
Yes
Barclay
Yes
Chludzinski
Yes
Gibbs
Yes
Lunsford
Yes
Ra
Yes
Steck
Yes
Barrett
Yes
Clark
Yes
Giglio
Yes
Lupardo
Yes
Raga
Yes
Stern
Yes
Beephan
Yes
Colton
Yes
Glick
Yes
Magnarelli
Yes
Rajkumar
Yes
Stirpe
Yes
Bendett
Yes
Conrad
Yes
Gonzalez-Rojas
Yes
Maher
Yes
Ramos
Yes
Tague
Yes
Benedetto
Yes
Cook
Yes
Gray
Yes
Mamdani
Yes
Reilly
ER
Tannousis
Yes
Berger
Yes
Cruz
Yes
Griffin
Yes
Manktelow
Yes
Reyes
Yes
Tapia
Yes ‡
Bichotte Hermel
Yes
Cunningham
Yes
Hawley
Yes
McDonald
Yes
Rivera
Yes
Taylor
Yes
Blankenbush
Yes
Dais
Yes
Hevesi
Yes ‡
McDonough
Yes
Romero
Yes
Torres
Yes
Blumencranz
Yes
Davila
Yes
Hooks
Yes
McMahon
Yes
Rosenthal
Yes
Valdez
Yes ‡
Bologna
Yes
De Los Santos
Yes
Hunter
Yes
Meeks
Yes
Rozic
Yes
Vanel
Yes
Bores
Yes
DeStefano
Yes
Hyndman
Yes
Mikulin
Yes
Santabarbara
Yes
Walker
Yes
Brabenec
Yes
Dilan
Yes
Jackson
Yes
Miller
Yes
Sayegh
Yes
Walsh
Yes
Braunstein
Yes
Dinowitz
Yes
Jacobson
ER
Mitaynes
Yes
Schiavoni
Yes
Weprin
Yes
Bronson
Yes ‡
DiPietro
Yes
Jensen
Yes
Molitor
Yes
Seawright
Yes
Wieder
Yes
Brook-Krasny
Yes
Durso
Yes
Jones
Yes
Morinello
Yes
Sempolinski
Yes
Williams
Yes
Brown EA
Yes
Eachus
Yes
Kassay
Yes
Norber
Yes
Septimo
Yes
Woerner
Yes
Brown K
Yes
Eichenstein
Yes
Kay
Yes
Novakhov
Yes
Shimsky
Yes
Wright
Yes
Burdick
Yes
Epstein
Yes ‡
Kelles
Yes
O'Pharrow
Yes
Shrestha
Yes
Yeger
Yes
Burke
Yes
Fall
Yes
Kim
Yes
Otis
Yes
Simon
Yes
Zaccaro
Yes
Burroughs
Yes
Fitzpatrick
Yes
Lasher
Yes
Palmesano
Yes
Simone
Yes
Zinerman
Yes ‡
Buttenschon
Yes
Forrest
Yes
Lavine
Yes
Paulin
Yes
Simpson
Yes
Mr. Speaker
‡ Indicates voting via videoconference
A05295 Memo:
Go to topNEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION
submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)   BILL NUMBER: A5295 SPONSOR: Schiavoni
  TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the Indian law, in relation to the reinstatement of state recognition and acknowledgement of the Montaukett Indian Nation   PURPOSE: Relates to the reinstatement of state recognition and acknowledgement of the Montaukett Indian Nation. It provides for the leadership of the Montaukett Indian Nation; qualification of voters and office.   SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: Section 1. Legislative Findings Section 2. Amends Section 2 of the Indian Law to add the Montaukett Indian Nation to the list of New York State Indian Nations and Tribes Section 3. Amends the Indian Law by adding a new Article 11 - "The Montaukett Indian Nation" Section 4. Provides for an immediate effective date   JUSTIFICATION: The Montaukett Indian Nation seeks reinstatement of its recognition and acknowledgment by the state of New York. Such recognition and acknowl- edgment was improperly removed from the Montaukett Indian Nation in 1910 in the case of Pharaoh v. Benson,69 Misc. Rep. 241(Supreme, Suffolk Co., 1910) affirmed 164 App. Div. 51, affirmed 222 N.Y. 665, when the Montaukett Indian Nation was declared to be "extinct". The court ruled that "the tribe has disintegrated and been absorbed into the mass of citizens and at the time of commencement of this action there was no tribe of Montaukett Indians". This arbitrary ruling ignored earlier U.S. Supreme Court decisions defining Indian Nations according to criteria under which the Montaukett Indian Nation qualified as an existing sovereign tribe and giving Congress, rather than the courts, power to decide the status of an Indian. In the first of these U.S. Supreme Court decisions, United States v. Roger, 45 U.S. 567 (1848), the court ruled that the primary criteria for Indian identity was evidence that an Indian had to have some genealogi- cal connection with a recognized group that had existed before the arrival of the European white explorers, traders, and settlers. Verified evidence demonstrates that the Montaukett Indian Nation existed prior to the Doctrine of Discovery and, as a sovereign tribe, ruled from the end of the Island to what is today the town of Hempstead. Subsequently, a decade before the Montaukett decision, in Montoya v. U.S., 180 U.S. 261 (1901), the U.S. Supreme Court further defined an Indian tribe as "a body of Indians of the same or similar race, united in a community under one leadership or government, and inhabiting a particular though sometimes well-defined territory". The Montaukett Indian Nation also met this criteria. Further, at the time of Pharaoh v. Benson decision, the judicial branch- es of state and federal governments had no authority to determine the status of an Indian tribe. Only the U.S. Congress had such power. In 1903, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432 (1903) that only Congress can determine when changes in customs are sufficient to invalidate tribal status. The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled in Butts v. Northern Pacific Rail Road (1911), that neither the lapse of time, allotment of a portion of the tribal lands in severalty, immigration of a majority of the tribe, nor the fact that the habits and customs of the tribe have changed by inter- course with whites authorize the courts to disregard tribal status. That same year, the U.S. Supreme Court again spoke to the question of judicial authority in cases involving tribal existence, holding in Tiger v. Western Investment Company, 221 U.S. 286 (1911) that only the U.S. Congress had the authority to determine changes in tribal status. In 1994, the State Supreme Court, in the case of Breakers Motel, Inc. v. Sunbeach Montauk Two, Inc., subsequently described the Pharaoh case as being of "questionable propriety", a recognition by the State Supreme Court that the decision removing recognition and acknowledgment from the Montaukett Indian Nation was dubious. This legislature finds that in Pharaoh v. Benson, the Court improperly ignored U.S. Supreme Court precedent and lacked jurisdiction to judge the status of the Montaukett Indian Nation. It is the purpose of this legislation to reverse this improper and illegal result by the rein statement of acknowledgment and recognition by the State of New York to the Montaukett Indian Nation.   LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 2024: A.9124/S.8550 Veto 120 of 2024 2023: A.6919/S.6721 Veto 61 of 2023 2021-22: A.4069/S.6889 Veto 110 of 2022 2019-20: A.5411/S.3691 2018: A.9898/S.7770 Veto 360 of 2018 2017: A.2325/S.3006 Veto 174 of 2017 2015-16: A.202A/S.375A 2014: A.9704/S.7619   FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None   EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect immediately.
A05295 Text:
Go to top STATE OF NEW YORK ________________________________________________________________________ 5295 2025-2026 Regular Sessions IN ASSEMBLY February 12, 2025 ___________ Introduced by M. of A. SCHIAVONI -- read once and referred to the Committee on Judiciary AN ACT to amend the Indian law, in relation to the reinstatement of state recognition and acknowledgement of the Montaukett Indian Nation The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem- bly, do enact as follows: 1 Section 1. Legislative findings. The Montaukett Indian Nation seeks 2 reinstatement of its recognition and acknowledgment by the state of New 3 York. Such recognition and acknowledgment was improperly removed from 4 the Montaukett Indian Nation in 1910 in the case of Pharaoh v. Benson, 5 69 Misc. Rep. 241(Supreme, Suffolk Co., 1910) affirmed 164 App. Div. 51, 6 affirmed 222 N.Y. 665, when the Montaukett Indian Nation was declared to 7 be "extinct". 8 The court ruled that "the tribe has disintegrated and been absorbed 9 into the mass of citizens and at the time of commencement of this action 10 there was no tribe of Montaukett Indians". This arbitrary ruling 11 ignored earlier U.S. Supreme Court decisions defining Indian Nations 12 according to criteria under which the Montaukett Indian Nation qualified 13 as an existing sovereign tribe and giving Congress, rather than the 14 courts, power to decide the status of an Indian. 15 In the first of these U.S. Supreme Court decisions, United States v. 16 Roger, 45 U.S. 567 (1848), the court ruled that the primary criteria for 17 Indian identity was evidence that an Indian had to have some genealogi- 18 cal connection with a recognized group that had existed before the 19 arrival of the European white explorers, traders, and settlers. Veri- 20 fied evidence demonstrates that the Montaukett Indian Nation existed 21 prior to the Doctrine of Discovery and, as a sovereign tribe, ruled from 22 the end of the Island to what is today the town of Hempstead. 23 Subsequently, a decade before the Montaukett decision, in Montoya v. 24 U.S., 180 U.S. 261 (1901), the U.S. Supreme Court further defined an 25 Indian tribe as "a body of Indians of the same or similar race, united EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [] is old law to be omitted. LBD07499-01-5A. 5295 2 1 in a community under one leadership or government, and inhabiting a 2 particular though sometimes well-defined territory". The Montaukett 3 Indian Nation also met this criteria. 4 Further, at the time of Pharaoh v. Benson decision, the judicial 5 branches of state and federal governments had no authority to determine 6 the status of an Indian tribe. Only the U.S. Congress had such power. In 7 1903, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the United States v. Rickert, 188 8 U.S. 432 (1903) that only Congress can determine when changes in customs 9 are sufficient to invalidate tribal status. 10 The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled in Butts v. Northern Pacific Rail- 11 road (1911), that neither the lapse of time, allotment of a portion of 12 the tribal lands in severalty, immigration of a majority of the tribe, 13 nor the fact that the habits and customs of the tribe have changed by 14 intercourse with whites authorize the courts to disregard tribal status. 15 That same year, the U.S. Supreme Court again spoke to the question of 16 judicial authority in cases involving tribal existence, holding in Tiger 17 v. Western Investment Company, 221 U.S. 286 (1911) that only the U.S. 18 Congress had the authority to determine changes in tribal status. 19 In 1994, the State Supreme Court, in the case of Breakers Motel, Inc. 20 v. Sunbeach Montauk Two, Inc., subsequently described the Pharaoh case 21 as being of "questionable propriety", a recognition by the State Supreme 22 Court that the decision removing recognition and acknowledgment from the 23 Montaukett Indian Nation was dubious. 24 This legislature finds that in Pharaoh v. Benson, the Court improperly 25 ignored U.S. Supreme Court precedent and lacked jurisdiction to judge 26 the status of the Montaukett Indian Nation. It is the purpose of this 27 legislation to reverse this improper and illegal result by the rein- 28 statement of acknowledgment and recognition by the State of New York to 29 the Montaukett Indian Nation. 30 § 2. Section 2 of the Indian law, as added by chapter 174 of the laws 31 of 2013, is amended to read as follows: 32 § 2. New York state Indian nations and tribes. The term "Indian nation 33 or tribe" means one of the following New York state Indian nations or 34 tribes: Cayuga Nation, Oneida Nation of New York, Onondaga Nation, Poos- 35 patuck or Unkechauge Nation, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, Seneca Nation of 36 Indians, Shinnecock Indian Nation, Tonawanda Band of Seneca, the 37 Montaukett Indian Nation, and Tuscarora Nation. 38 § 3. The Indian law is amended by adding a new article 11 to read as 39 follows: 40 ARTICLE 11 41 THE MONTAUKETT INDIAN NATION 42 Section 170. Reinstatement of state recognition and acknowledgment. 43 171. Leadership of Montaukett Indian Nation; elections; terms of 44 office. 45 172. Qualifications of voters. 46 173. Qualifications for office. 47 § 170. Reinstatement of state recognition and acknowledgment. Recogni- 48 tion and acknowledgement of the Montaukett Indian Nation by the state of 49 New York is hereby reinstated. 50 § 171. Leadership of Montaukett Indian Nation; elections; terms of 51 office. In accordance with the tribal governance rules, customs and 52 regulations of the Montaukett Indian Nation, a sovereign nation, the 53 tribe shall have a chief or sachem, three tribal trustees, and a tribal 54 secretary. The trustees shall be elected by a majority vote by ballot of 55 lineal members of the nation eligible to vote at an annual tribal meet-A. 5295 3 1 ing which shall be held on the first Tuesday in April. All officers 2 shall hold office for a period of two years. 3 § 172. Qualifications of voters. No person shall vote at the election 4 provided for in section one hundred seventy-one of this article unless 5 such person is at least eighteen years of age and is certified as a 6 lineal member of the Montaukett Indian Nation in accordance with the 7 nation's governance rules, customs and regulations. 8 § 173. Qualifications for office. All officers shall qualify for 9 office and perform their respective duties in accordance with the gover- 10 nance rules, customs and regulations of the Montaukett Indian Nation. 11 § 4. This act shall take effect immediately.