The U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs’ proposed overhaul of the recognition process for Indian tribes would never survive the legal challenges it would surely inspire, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal said Wednesday.

“This draft is colossally misguided and wrongheaded — both legally and policywise,” the Connecticut Democrat said. “Legally, it’s completely unfounded and would be struck down by the courts.”

State and federal lawmakers as well as state and local officials took a final — for now — swipe at the proposed changes this week, unleashing some of their most pointed attacks yet.

The BIA-imposed deadline for comment on the changes passed Tuesday.

State Attorney General George Jepsen detailed the state’s position in a filing of more than 30 pages. Connecticut’s congressional delegation also registered its objections to the changes, as did the town of North Stonington and others. Tribal interests, including members of North Stonington’s Eastern Pequot Tribe, expressed support for the changes.

Jepsen, in a statement Wednesday, said the changes represent a “dramatic departure” from standards that have governed the recognition process for nearly 40 years.

“If adopted as proposed, petitioners could gain recognition in circumstances completely at odds with fundamental principles of tribal acknowledgement,” he said. “These proposals — which could give previously denied petitioners a second bite at the apple under greatly weakened criteria — are unjustified and should be rejected.”

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy endorsed Jepsen’s filing.

Blumenthal, Jepsen’s predecessor as attorney general, was emphatic, saying in a phone interview that the proposed changes would water down the standards for tribal recognition and prolong rather than shorten the application-review process. He said the three state-recognized tribes that lack federal recognition (the Eastern Pequots, the Kent-based Schaghticokes and the Golden Hill Paugussetts of Trumbull and Colchester) would seek to exploit the changes, as would “groups across the country.”

In its letter, the Connecticut congressional delegation noted that a federally recognized tribe can claim privately owned land; establish its own zoning and land use rules; exercise quasi-sovereign governmental powers; avoid most state laws and taxation; and open additional gaming facilities.

One of the main flaws in the proposed changes, Blumenthal said, is a provision that would accord weight to “the mere existence of a state reservation” rather than to evidence of a tribe’s political influence and authority or maintenance of a distinct community.

“It’s both illogical and illegal,” he said. “There’s no connection between a state reservation and evidence of a distinct community.”

The senator said allowing a tribe to pursue recognition a second time would create “a bee’s hive of (legal) claims.” A provision that would enable third parties that objected to an initial petition to block a second petition would be problematic, too, he said.

Under the proposed changes, a tribe would have to demonstrate that it has maintained a distinct community since 1934 rather than much earlier, a provision Blumenthal characterized as a “reduction in standards.”

“One of the clear certainties here is that these rules, as written, will lead to very serious, time-consuming legal challenges … by interested citizens, property owners, local and state government, maybe even members of Congress,” he said. “I’d certainly join a challenge.”

b.hallenbeck@theday.com

Twitter: @bjhallenbeck

View a copy of Jepsen's comments to the BIA here.