Post by Okwes on Mar 14, 2007 13:51:59 GMT -5
State's sovereignty upheld in tribal ruling
The Modesto Bee _www.modbee.com_ (http://www.modbee.com)
Last Updated: January 4, 2007, 03:11:09 AM PST
Sometimes it's hard to tell the meaning of a court decision, but not in this
case.
California's right to protect its political system from corruption trumps
tribal sovereign immunity. That is the essence of a sensible ruling handed down
recently by a bare majority of the state Supreme Court.
The decision sends a powerful and necessary message to those who would
participate in our political system but who deliberately flout the laws designed
to govern that participation and protect the integrity of state politics.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Ming Chin, means that wealthy
gambling American Indian tribes, which have contributed tens of millions of
dollars to political campaigns in California over the past decade, must report
those contributions just like all other players in the state's political system.
Tribes also must report when they hire lobbyists to influence governmental
decisions �- again, just like all others who participate in the state's
political process.
The case grew out of a lawsuit the Fair Political Practices Commission filed
against the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians when that tribe failed to
report more than $9 million in political contributions. The tribe argued that
as a sovereign tribal government, it was immune from lawsuits.
In his opinion, Chin acknowledged that federal law shields tribes from most
lawsuits. But, he wrote, to do so in this case left the state unable "to
ensure the integrity" of its election system.
"Allowing tribal members to participate in our state electoral process while
leaving the state powerless to effectively guard against political
corruption," Chin wrote, "puts the state in an untenable and indefensible position
without recourse."
Justice Carlos Moreno, who wrote the dissenting opinion, agreed with tribal
attorneys who argued that only Congress could modify the sovereign immunity
doctrine. Dissenters also said the state could have used alternative methods to
get the information it sought. For example, California could enter into
government-to-government negotiations with tribes to work out a special tribal
campaign reporting system or depend on recipients of tribal contributions to
report.
Fortunately, those arguments failed to impress the court majority.
"Preserving the integrity of our democratic system of governance is too important to
compromise with weak alternatives that the state may not be able to enforce,"
Chin said.
In pursuing this lawsuit, California's Fair Political Practices Commission
has not attacked tribal sovereignty. It has defended the state's sovereign
right to conduct fair elections against attack from one of the wealthiest and
most powerful special interests in the state. That is easy to comprehend and
worthy of praise.
The Modesto Bee _www.modbee.com_ (http://www.modbee.com)
Last Updated: January 4, 2007, 03:11:09 AM PST
Sometimes it's hard to tell the meaning of a court decision, but not in this
case.
California's right to protect its political system from corruption trumps
tribal sovereign immunity. That is the essence of a sensible ruling handed down
recently by a bare majority of the state Supreme Court.
The decision sends a powerful and necessary message to those who would
participate in our political system but who deliberately flout the laws designed
to govern that participation and protect the integrity of state politics.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Ming Chin, means that wealthy
gambling American Indian tribes, which have contributed tens of millions of
dollars to political campaigns in California over the past decade, must report
those contributions just like all other players in the state's political system.
Tribes also must report when they hire lobbyists to influence governmental
decisions �- again, just like all others who participate in the state's
political process.
The case grew out of a lawsuit the Fair Political Practices Commission filed
against the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians when that tribe failed to
report more than $9 million in political contributions. The tribe argued that
as a sovereign tribal government, it was immune from lawsuits.
In his opinion, Chin acknowledged that federal law shields tribes from most
lawsuits. But, he wrote, to do so in this case left the state unable "to
ensure the integrity" of its election system.
"Allowing tribal members to participate in our state electoral process while
leaving the state powerless to effectively guard against political
corruption," Chin wrote, "puts the state in an untenable and indefensible position
without recourse."
Justice Carlos Moreno, who wrote the dissenting opinion, agreed with tribal
attorneys who argued that only Congress could modify the sovereign immunity
doctrine. Dissenters also said the state could have used alternative methods to
get the information it sought. For example, California could enter into
government-to-government negotiations with tribes to work out a special tribal
campaign reporting system or depend on recipients of tribal contributions to
report.
Fortunately, those arguments failed to impress the court majority.
"Preserving the integrity of our democratic system of governance is too important to
compromise with weak alternatives that the state may not be able to enforce,"
Chin said.
In pursuing this lawsuit, California's Fair Political Practices Commission
has not attacked tribal sovereignty. It has defended the state's sovereign
right to conduct fair elections against attack from one of the wealthiest and
most powerful special interests in the state. That is easy to comprehend and
worthy of praise.