The Herald of Everett, Washington
HeraldNet on Facebook HeraldNet on Twitter HeraldNet RSS feeds HeraldNet Pinterest HeraldNet Google Plus HeraldNet Youtube
HeraldNet Newsletters  Newsletters: Sign up | Manage  Green editions icon Green editions

Calendar


HeraldNet Headlines
HeraldNet Newsletter Delivered to your inbox each week.
Published: Thursday, August 30, 2012, 5:03 p.m.

State Supreme Court OKs gas tax challenge

YAKIMA -- Opening the door to questions about sovereignty and compacts in Indian Country, the Washington state Supreme Court said Thursday in a split verdict that a challenge to gas tax treaties with American Indian tribes may go forward even though the tribes are not party to the case.
Washington state officials have argued that federal law prevents them from collecting gas taxes on reservations. They’ve opted instead to sign agreements with tribes to mitigate those taxes.
Under most motor vehicle fuel compacts, the state reimburses 75 percent of such taxes, and the tribes agree to spend the money on roads.
The Automotive United Trades Organization, a trade group representing Washington gas station owners and auto repair shops, says such agreements give tribal retailers an unfair advantage, allowing them to undercut prices.
The group filed suit last year in Grays Harbor County Superior Court to have the compacts declared unconstitutional and to seek an order barring the state from making payments from its motor vehicle fund to the tribes.
The state argued that the station owners could not sue without including the tribes, and since the station owners could not sue the tribes, which are sovereign nations, they could not sue anyone. The judge agreed and dismissed the case.
In a 5-4 decision Thursday, however, the state high court overturned that ruling, saying that justice may not be served when a plaintiff can’t sue because an absent party is a sovereign entity.
“In such an instance, the quest for `complete justice’ ironically leads to none at all,” Justice Debra L. Stephens wrote for the majority. “Sovereign immunity is meant to be raised as a shield by the tribe, not wielded as a sword by the state.”
The conclusion does not minimize the importance of tribal sovereign immunity, the majority said, but rather recognizes that dismissal would immunize the state, not the tribes, from judicial review.
In the dissenting opinion, Justice Mary E. Fairhurst wrote that a judgment rendered in the tribes’ absence will prejudice their interest in the compacts. Such a judgment will weaken tribes’ ability to negotiate future deals and impede their sovereign right to govern their reservations, she said.
“This case cannot proceed `in equity and good conscience,”’ Fairhurst wrote. “The tribes’ substantial interests far outweigh AUTO’s much weaker interest in litigating its claim.”
The decision hinged on whether the plaintiffs had any other remedy if the case is dismissed. The dissenting justices argued that the plaintiffs could attempt to change the law through the state Legislature, but the majority called the idea of redressing potentially unconstitutional government conduct through the Legislature “astonishing.”
For more than 100 years, courts have concluded that tribes can still be indispensable parties in a case even if they can’t be sued as sovereign nations, said Rene Tomisser, senior counsel for the attorney general’s office, who called the ruling “surprising.”
Washington has signed more than 20 fuel tax compacts with tribes and dozens more governing cigarette taxes and gambling revenue.
Tomisser said the ruling could make those deals vulnerable and that the court’s decision showed “disregard for the impact on tribal sovereignty.”
He said it was too soon to determine whether the state would appeal.
Phil Talmadge, the attorney for Automotive United Trades Organization, said Thursday that he was “very gratified” by the court’s decision.
Talmadge, a former state Supreme Court justice, raised concerns about money going from the state treasury to tribes without being appropriated by the Legislature, and whether tribes are spending that money on roads as required.
“There’s no demonstration that the state knows,” he said, “and the compact makes it impossible for the public to know.”
———
Associated Press writer Rachel La Corte contributed to this report from Olympia.
Story tags » State Supreme CourtAmerican IndianYakima

Share your comments: Log in using your HeraldNet account or your Facebook, Twitter or Disqus profile. Comments that violate the rules are subject to removal. Please see our terms of use. Please note that you must verify your email address for your comments to appear.

You are logged in using your HeraldNet ID. Click here to update your profile. | Log out.

Our new comment system is not supported in IE 7. Please upgrade your browser here.

comments powered by Disqus
digital subscription promo

Subscribe now

Unlimited digital access starting at 99 cents, or included with any print subscription.

loading...
HeraldNet Classifieds
SOSEScript: adiciojobs failed executing with the following error: Error on line 4 position 1: The operation timed out

HeraldNet highlights

Lofty potential for drones
Lofty potential for drones: Aircraft could be used in real estate, other businesses
Looking for a friend?
Looking for a friend?: Animals up for adoption at the Everett shelter (7 new photos)
A community of kindness
A community of kindness: Seahawks home a display of affection for couple's daughter
Super snacks
Super snacks: Best finger-food recipes to make for the big game
SnoCoSocial