Thank you for your question.
Yes, I think it's important. However, we seem to be assuming that symbols are minor and of no great consequence, as if something symbolic has no substance. As Ms. Harell said, symbols sometimes have effects that influence other attitudes, including political attitudes.
It was suggested that trust in the federal government, for example, may encourage electoral participation. Measures like these have the direct effect of reducing the cost of participation and making the vote more accessible and easier, and may have a very limited direct impact in themselves. But if measures like these affect other considerations, for example the fact that indigenous people may have more trust in the government, and spills over onto other attitudes like that one, including interest in politics, it might have a bit more more substantial impact.
I don't think we could expect a major impact, for the reasons I gave in my opening statement. Even in the indigenous samples, the people think it's easy to go out and vote. The main objective of this measure is to facilitate the act of going and voting. Since it is already easy to do that, the impact may certainly be limited. It is mainly symbolic, but it can have indirect effects that are more important than the direct effects.