NATIVE AMERICAN CAUCUS MEETING AT THE CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S STATE CONVENTION - 2004

JANUARY 16, 2004

SAN JOSE CONVENTION CENTER

Meeting called to order by Chairwoman Mary Ann Andreas at 5:00 p.m.

Introduction of executive board and committee chairs in attendance:

Andrew Masiel, was requested to attend a funeral of an elder and could not attend this meeting.  Joely De La Torre, Present; Michael Lombardi, absent; Kyle Crandall, present; Raven Lopez Workman, present; Paula Starr, present; Mary Ellen Early, present; Chad Gordon, present; Marcia Hoaglen, present; Laura Miranda, absent, Helen Doherty, present, and Mary Ann Andreas, present.

Introduction: Yvette Martinez-Bracamonte, political director for Senator Boxer’s campaign.  Senator Boxer has eight republicans battling for her seat.  Senator Boxer has 12 strong years and needs our support.  Chairwoman Andreas request we support Senator Boxer.

Chairwoman Andreas introduces Ruby ____

Old Business: Reports from Executive board.

Kyle Crandall – Treasurer’s Report.

Paula Starr – Recording Secretary’s Report.  Minutes read (out loud) from June 27, 2004.  Motion to approve minutes as read; motion Passed.

Chairwoman introduced Maggie Florez, candidate for the 34^th Assembly, Tulare County.

Everyone sang Happy Birthday to Joe ______________.  (Indian style)

Chairwoman introduced State Senator Shirley Kiechl, 23^rd District.

Chairwoman introduced Art Torres, Party Chair.  Mr. Torres said he will help defeat the “Hollywood Park” gaming issue.

Chairwoman introduced Cynthia Matthews.

Chairwoman introduced Margie Mussermichael, 32st District.

Chairwoman recognized Reginald Sawyer.

Update on AB 858 – Mascot Bill from Paula Starr.

Helen Doherty from the CTA reported on the Improving Education Act for November.  It needs to be sign by April 7^th; $4.5 billion to go back into the classroom; not for administration.  Universal Preschool a year prior Kindergarten eligibility.

Chad Gordon reported on legal issues.  Fourth Annual Indian Law Conference of the California India Law Association in San Diego on February 28^th, 2004. Orange County Democrats fundraiser/flag day celebration in Long Beach to honor Lori Piestewa.  The following is a recap of the United States v. Lara case now before the Supreme Court and scheduled for oral argument on January 21, 2004.

While on the Spirit Lake Nation Reservation, Billy Jo Lara, a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, was arrested for public intoxication by Bureau of Indian Affairs police officers.  Lara was charged with five violations of the Spirit Lake Tribal Code, pled guilty to three of the charged offenses, and was sentenced to a jail term of 155 days.  Following this, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Lara with assault on a federal officer.  After consenting to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge, Lara moved to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy and other grounds.  The magistrate judge denied the motions, and Lara entered a plea of guilty conditioned on his right to seek appellate review of his motion to dismiss the indictment.

On appeal, Lara asserted that Congress lacked the power to authorize his criminal prosecution by the Spirit Lake Nation as an exercise of the Tribe’s inherent sovereign power.  Lara claimed that the tribal court of the Spirit Lake Nation was acting not as a sovereign, but as an agency of the United States pursuant to congressionally delegated authority under the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) when it convicted him of assaulting a police officer on the Spirit Lake reservation.  Therefore, the United States’ subsequent prosecution in federal court based on the same incident was a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”  The right to be free from multiple prosecutions is limited by the dual sovereignty doctrine, which permits an independent sovereign to prosecute an individual who has been prosecuted by another sovereign for the same act.  One who violates the laws of two independent sovereigns commits an offense against each, and thus a second prosecution is not for the “same offense.”

The application of the dual sovereignty doctrine “turns on whether the two entities draw their authority to punish the offender from distinct sources of power.”  The Double Jeopardy Clause does not permit successive prosecutions where the authority for the prosecution derives from the same sovereign source.  Conversely, the dual sovereignty doctrine permits one sovereign to prosecute a defendant who has previously been prosecuted for the same act by another sovereign.  Consequently, whether the dual sovereignty doctrine applies to Lara’s double jeopardy challenge turns on whether the Spirit Lake Nation exercised its inherent sovereign authority in prosecuting Lara, or was acting pursuant to congressionally delegated federal authority under the ICRA.

A panel of United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that because the power of the Spirit Lake Nation is derived from its retained sovereignty and not from Congressionally delegated authority under the ICRA, Lara’s conviction on the federal charge did not run afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause.  However, the Eighth Circuit granted a rehearing of the panel’s original decision and reversed.  In doing so, the court reasoned that the Spirit Lake Nation exercises authority over external relations only to the extent that such a power has been delegated to it by Congress.  As a nonmember, according to the court, Lara was necessarily prosecuted pursuant to that delegated power.  Thus, the court held that where the ultimate source of power for prosecution is the same, “the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the government from maintaining a second prosecution for the same act.”

In order to protect its ability to bring federal prosecutions for crimes committed in Indian Country, the United States petitioned for certiorari.  The National Congress of American Indians, Native American Rights Fund, and eighteen tribes have filed amicus briefs in this case.  Eight states including Washington, Arizona, California, Colorado, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, and Oregon, also filed amicus briefs supporting congressional authority to restore tribal sovereignty in this context and emphasizing the law enforcement benefits of the amendments to the ICRA at dispute in this case.  The Court has scheduled oral argument for January 21, 2004.