You’d like to think the business of taking Native American land is something we’ve left behind.
Not ancient history, mind you—but at least a little back in the rearview. Something you could point to and say, “Well, we don’t do that anymore.”
You’d like to think that.
Which is why it ought to bother you that some in the state government—and Governor Mills herself—have come out in opposition to LD 958, a piece of legislation that would do something very simple: prohibit the use of eminent domain on tribal lands.
The Threat That’s Always There
Now, to be fair, they say it hasn’t been used in decades (though it has been used before). They say the state negotiates in good faith now. And I’m sure, in many cases, that’s true.
But let me ask you this:
Is it really a fair negotiation when one side knows the other could take what it wants if talks fall through?
If the government reserves the right to seize land—any land held by the Wabanaki Nations, even if they haven’t done it lately—that’s not mutual agreement. That’s pressure. That’s leverage. That’s not trust.
The Bigger Pattern
Now don’t get me wrong—I understand eminent domain has a place. Roads need to be built. Bridges repaired. Sometimes the public good comes up against private land.
But if you’ve looked around this country, you’ll know it’s not always as even-handed as the textbooks make it sound. Highways cut through disadvantaged neighborhoods. Power lines run across land that wasn’t properly consulted. The “public good” has a funny way of landing on the backs of people with less power or connections.
So when we talk about Native land—land held by sovereign tribal nations—we should be especially careful. Because this isn’t just any old parcel. This is in the context of a relationship with many broken promises.
A Matter of Consistency
Maine can’t seize land in New Hampshire or Massachusetts.
We wouldn’t try. We wouldn’t want to.
So why should we hold the right to do it on tribal land?
If we’re serious about trust—if we mean what we say about government-to-government relationships—then we don’t need the threat of eminent domain in our back pocket. We need dialogue. We need respect. And yes, we need limits.
LD 958 wouldn’t fix history.
But it would close one door that should’ve been shut a long time ago.
Let’s pass LD 958.
—Eben Flint