Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The Stevens County Commissioners are currently thinking over who they want to appoint to replace Pam Payne as District Court Judge.  As of 12 noon today a decision had not been announced.  Pam Payne announced her decision to leave the bench last month.  When a Superior Court Judge resigns midway through a term, it is the Governor who makes the appointment.  But with District Court, the decision belongs to the County Commissioners.  Once the County Commissioners appoint someone, that judge faces an election of the voters.  Traditionally, County Commissioners often consider some input from the other judges who preside and often times other government officials and local lawyers write to offer their opinions.  The commissioners then interview prospective candidates.   As well as intelligence, experience, and fairness, the temperament of an attorney is typically considered.  There have been several attorneys whose names have been mentioned as interested in the position.

The District Court judge hears small claims, small suits, name changes, and presides of misdemeanors such as DUI, minor assaults, etc.   Pam Payne always seemed to be pretty well thought of by prosecutors and defense attorneys alike.  I practiced law in front of her regularly my first year of private practice in 2003.  I always found her to be very fair.   Pam Payne, while she was a Stevens County Judge, often times would come to Ferry County once per month to preside.

Last week, I wrote about the young among us with electoral ambitions.  (article).  Now, I write about the older folks.  The Washington State Constitution prohibits attorneys from serving as judges once they turn 75 years old.

You are NOT taking my gavel

The State Constitution provides: A judge of the supreme court or the superior court shall retire from judicial office at the end of the calendar year in which he attains the age of seventy-five years. The legislature may, from time to time, fix a lesser age for mandatory retirement, not earlier than the end of the calendar year in which any such judge attains the age of seventy years, as the legislature deems proper.

Is that fair?

In June, I was in Chelan for some training, and State Supreme Court Justice Gerry Alexander was one of the speakers.  He mentioned to us that he would be unable to serve much longer because he would turn 75 before his term expired.  He did not seem too happy about that fact, but he did not solicit the help of the attorneys in trying to amend the Constitution.   Nevertheless, I have seen opinion pieces popping up suggesting that the law be changed to allow judges to serve longer.   There is a blog I read called  Supreme Court of Washington Blog, that brought to my attention an editorial in the Vancouver Columbian that strongly criticizes this mandatory retirement age for judges.  The Columbian points out that this rule was created in 1952, and that people are living longer.  I agree that this age limit of 75 should be changed.  Seeing Justice Alexander give his presentation in June, he certainly seemed like he was on top of his game.  When I represented Ferry County in front of the Supreme Court on a Growth Management Act case, he certainly seemed like a very thoughtful justice.   However, the Columbian editorial took the position that there should be no upper limit to judicial retirement age at all.  I am not sure I agree with that.  On one hand it makes sense to let the voters make up their own minds.  But on the other hand, it is a historical fact that sometimes judge in our society have not always known when to hang up their black robe.   In his book, The Psychology of the Supreme Court, Lawrence Wrightsman, writes:  Some Justices become physically disabled or even senile, but refuse to retire.  Justice William O. Douglas had a stroke on the last day of 1974 that left him partially paralyzed.  His speech was impaired, and one arm and one leg did not function.  he missed much of the 1974-75 term, returned in the Fall of 1975, and was not at full strength.  In fact, he was often confused and would refer to people by the wrong names, or not be able to respond at all.

But it is not just stubbornness that sometimes leads judges to hang on past their prime.  Wrightsman explains that several justices refused to retire until they could be assured that someone with similar views would replace them.

The Columbian takes the position that the answer to judicial retirement is simple – it should be left to the voters and that there should be no mandatory retirement age at all.  That would worry me.   Is it really dignified to have the possible senility of judges to be discussed in the public realm?  What attorney in his or her right mind would want to level that sort of accusation against a judge?  Is it left to the fellow justices on the court?   When William Douglas grew incapacitated while still on the bench, all the other judges agreed to simply continue to the following year any cases in which he was the deciding vote.  But none of those judges at the time publicly criticized the judge, or suggested his impeachment.  So is it left to the newspapers to ferret out judges that are too old for the job?  Does the Columbian really want to discuss the senility of justices in their election-year editorials?

What does everyone else think?  Should the upper limit be increased to 78 or 80?  Maybe the law should be changed so that any judge elected before age 75 could at least serve out the rest of his or her term.  What advantages are there to having a judge that is over 75?

How young is too young to run for election?  This subject came up in an earlier blog post that discussed potential sheriff candidates.    A reader shared that he thought that one local Sheriff’s deputy, were he to run for sheriff, would be way too young.  See comment.  That surprised me a little bit.  I always assumed that a person in their mid-thirties was in pretty solid territory age-wise to run for a job for a local elected official.  I may be a little biased because when I was elected prosecuting attorney in 1998, I was only 28 years old. I have to admit, I felt a little iffy about stepping into the political ring at that age. But at the time I was aware that our state representative, Cathy McMorris, was only 29.   Cathy McMorris was elected to the State Legislature when she was only 24.   Cathy McMorris (now known as Cathy McMorris Rodgers) went on to become the State legislature’s minority leader, and later was elected to US congress at age 35.

The subject of  a suitable age of an elected official has arisen recently in the political campaign for prosecuting attorney in Grant County.   Earlier this year a deputy prosecutor by the name of Angus Lee was appointed to step in to replace John Knodell who was elected judge.   Angus Lee was appointed by the commissioners.   Angus Lee is 32 years old, and is a 2004 graduate of law school.  When I was elected prosecuting attorney at 28, the issue that was the hardest for me was managing people and running an office.   I think the trial work can pretty much be handled by any prosecutor with a few years under his or her belt.   In Grant County, Angus Lee has a pretty big office to run, and lately his office has had a lot of turnover, as other prosecutors get used to their new boss.    I don’t know Angus Lee too well because I have only had one case with him.

I read in the Spokesman Review last week that an 18-year-old high school senior by the name of Greg Ridgley was running for city council in Spokane.  Now an 18-year-old on city council would be pretty interesting, don’t you think?   Greg Ridgley’s campaign seems pretty low key right now.   When I looked him up online, he didn’t have a web page up.    I had court in Spokane this morning and I looked all over for his campaign signs but I didn’t see any.  Ridgley has a facebook page that discussed his campaign and his recent trip to Australia as a youth ambassador.  My suggestion to him would be to promote his campaign as much as possible on the internet.  The use of the internet in politics is a very hot topic in the media.  See for example the debate of Jennifer Gregerson’s use of Twitter.  See article.  It seems that if Greg Ridgley found a way to use the internet for his campaign in a novel way, he would garner more attention.  Greg Ridgley is going to be a senior at Gonzaga Prep and is running as a Republican.  The funniest thing about Greg Ridgley’s campaign is the interesting comments that people have made about his campaign on the internet.   None of the comments have been disparaging.  One Spokane resident posted a comment that Greg Ridgley “has to have more sense then the rest of them and he has not had much of a chance to be corrupted.” Another wrote of Ridgley “Pure honesty and interest to help the community. No good old boys to owe. Fresh. Clean. Passionate. Way to go. The rest of his peers who can vote will be doing it”.

What would people think about an 18-year-old senior running for city council in Republic, or Colville or Okanogan?  It seems like people would be more receptive to an 18-year-old on a city council, rather than in a position of mayor where more power is placed in a single position.   An 18-year-old running for sheriff would seem to pose a problem.   Under State law, a person has to be 21 to carry a hand gun.

As for me, I would not have a problem voting for a person in their 30’s for sheriff.  What do you all think?

Amanda Knox, a University of Washington student, is currently standing trial for Murder in Perugia, a city in central Italy.  Amanda Knox, like many college students, opted to spend her junior year overseas.  She shared an apartment with four young women, including Meredith Kercher, a British student.

Amanda with her family. (Used with permission of friendsofamanda.org)

Amanda Knox, was dating an Italian man, and when she returned from his home on November 2nd, 2007, she found no sign of her roommate Meredith.  Amanda tried to call Meridith’s cell phone but did not receive an answer.  Amanda noticed a few droplets of blood in the shower.  Getting concerned, Amanda called her boyfriend (Raffaele Sollecito) over.  Amanda, and her boyfriend noticed a broken window, and noticed that the door to Meredith’s room was locked.  They called the police.  The police arrived, forced open the door, and found Meredith Kercher dead with cuts to her throat under a duvet.  The police questioned Amanda and Raffaele, and the two gave consistent accounts of their whereabouts for the days prior.  Later, under pressure from police, Raffaele told the police that Amanda left his apartment for several hours.   Under pressure, Amanda described a dream to the police about overhearing Meredith’s screams while she tried to cover her ears with a pillow.   Amanda’s supporters take the position that the statements were made under duress and she told the police what they wanted to hear even though it was not true.  Amanda Knox was kept up all night, claims to have been hit, and was denied an attorney and professional translator.

Amanda in her home in Seattle prior to leaving for Italy. (Used with permission of friendsofamanda.org)

The police linked a man named Rudy Guede to the murder because his DNA was found in Meredith’s body and his bloody hand print was found on a pillow underneath the body.  The police eavesdropped on Rudy Guede’s phone calls and heard him say that Amanda had nothing to do with the killing.  Later, under pressure from police, he indicated that Amanda was present at the time, but denied that the two killed Meredith.  Rudy Guede admitted that he had relations with Meredith that stopped short of intercourse.  Based on the evidence, Rudy Guede was convicted of sexual assault and murder.  Rudy Guede changed his story to implicate Amanda and Raffaele in the killing in some sex game gone wrong.  Amanda Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito are currently pending trial. The Italian police detectives have testified that they found DNA evidence of Amanda’s footprint in Meredith’s blood in the apartment, and traces of Amanda’s and Meredith’s intermingled blood in several locations there.  No murder weapon has been found, but the police said an eight-inch kitchen knife at Raffaele’s house bore traces of Meredith’s DNA near the tip and Amanda’s the handle. It should be no surprise that the knife would have Amanda’s DNA on the handle considering how much time she spent at her boyfriend’s house.  The DNA of Meredith, according to several outside experts, was of such small amounts, and was available only after numerous enhancements in the testing, that it could have belonged to numerous individuals.  Additionally, the knife did not match the bloody outline of a knife at the crime scene.  Experts have already testified that the knife in question could not have made at least two of the three cuts found on Meredith’s throat.

Ambiguous DNA evidence, and statements made to police under pressure,are often how wrongful convictions occur here in the U.S.  According to the Innocence Project, a variety of factors can contribute to a false confession during an  interrogation.  Many cases have included a combination of several of these causes. They include:

• duress
• coercion
• intoxication
• diminished capacity
• mental impairment
• ignorance of the law
• fear of violence
• the actual infliction of harm
• the threat of a harsh sentence
• misunderstanding the situation

Do you ever hear stories on the news where an inmate is determined to be innocent of a crime that occurred years ago due to the use of a DNA test?  When we look back on those cases, in 25% of those cases a person ended up confessing to a crime that they did not commit.

Many experts in the U.S. have questioned the fairness of the trial.  Pulitzer-prize winning New York Times columnist Timothy Egan wrote “The case against Knox has so many holes in it, and is so tied to the career of a powerful Italian prosecutor who is under indictment for professional misconduct, that any fair-minded jury would have thrown it out months ago.”  (See this opinion piece about Amanda Knox)

King County Superior Court Judge Mike Heavey is among the local people trying to help Amanda.   Heavey took the unusual step of writing to the Italian council that regulates judges to protest the leaks from the prosecutor, police and prison officials to the tabloid press.  According to a Seattle Times article he wrote “Amanda Knox is in grave danger of being convicted of the murder because of illegal and improper poisoning of public opinion and judicial opinion.”   He continued: “I respectfully submit that the prosecutor’s office, police and prison employees have made illegal and false statements … These false reports have wrongfully poisoned the well of public opinion against Amanda.”

Amanda Knox’s parents have spent all their retirement funds and their equity in their home paying for a team of defense lawyers, forensic experts, and investigators to help defend their daughter.  Amanda Knox testified in her own defense on June 13th, and a verdict should not be too far off.   The jury consists of two judges and six local citizens.  Unlike juries here in Washington, a conviction need not be unanimous.  Rather a simple majority may convict.

For more information, See www.friendsofamanda.org.

Am I the only one who read in the Spokesman-Review yesterday the AP story about the Louisville, Kentucky pastor who encouraged church-goers to appear for services bearing arms?  See story.  (Sometimes the Spokesman-Review moves their stories offline right away – if so, click here for MSNBC version).  You have to admit, this is a pretty easy way to get attention.  And apparently, the pastor drew in a bunch of newcomers to his church, which is always probably a goal.   Seeing as the bible predates modern firearms by a few millennia, the pastor had a lot to say about guns, including criticisms of the Obama administration.  The pastor seems a little nutty, but he poses an interesting question:  Is it still socially acceptable to bear a firearm just for the heck of it?  A lot of gun enthusiasts hunt, target practice, and keep guns for home defense, and a lot carry concealed weapons.  But what about just wearing one in open while walking down the street, or to the grocery store, or to the city park just for the heck of it?  What about carrying one slung over your shoulder?  I don’t really see this too often, even in the rural Western towns of  Ferry and Okanogan County where I practice law.

If you want to read a really interesting article, check out an earlier Spokesman-Review article about a couple of Idaho teenagers who decided to carry guns with them every where they went.  The 18-year-old brother would wear a 9mm on his hip.  (Note, in Washington you would have to be 21.) And, the 15-year-old brother carried a .22 rifle.   With these weapons in hand, the two visited the public library, city parks, bible study etc.  Even in North Idaho, people called 911 when they saw the armed teens walking down the street.  “If you don’t exercise a right, eventually it will go away,” the older boy explained.  “I’d like to raise people’s awareness that it’s a right, and I hope to encourage others to exercise that right.”  A gentleman from a veterans group explained: “It’s disturbing to see them in a library with guns.”  Really?

The pastor in Louisville mentioned that he thought up the idea of asking parishioners to bring guns to church after he spoke with people who expressed concerns about Barack Obama’s views on guns.  Are we going to see a lot of similar protests in the months to come?

This phenomenon of carrying guns in public places is a rural, Western-states thing.  Under Washington law, cities are free to come up with their own city ordinances on this subject, and many have.

It must have been a slow news week for West-side news reporters covering city council meetings in the Seattle area.  The talk of the town was Jennifer Gregerson, a city council member for Mukilteo who posted on Twitter the following message:

City staff and some council now Debriefing and relaxing at ivars for late night happy hour. Time for dinner, I think!

The council member posted this message on the way to Ivar’s restaurant, and it raised eye brows because it turned out that a total of four council members showed up and thus the informal group constituted a quorum of the council. The Open Public Meetings Act makes it illegal to discuss business unless a meeting of a quorum is open to the public.   When I read the councilwoman’s Twitter post, it was pretty clear to me that no official business was discussed, and that going to a to a “late night happy hour” for “debriefing” was a euphemism for getting a little drunk with friends.  But this ambiguous term “debriefing” led the Snohomish County HeraldNet to lead with the headline: “’Tweets’ bring possibly illegal meeting to light.”  Huh?  Don’t people realize that city council members might enjoy talking about something else besides council business?  It turned out another council member, Kevin Stolz saw the get together, and rather than join the group, he called the media.   An Assistant Attorney General who was consulted for the story explained that it is not illegal for public officials to get together as long as they do not discuss official business.  A city lawyer was present at Ivars that evening and confirmed that no business was discussed.  The council member who complained also commented: “And the Twitter thing? That just should not have happened.”   But why would it be wrong for a council member to post on Twitter what is going on with city business?    It turned out Councilwoman Gregerson posted 28 updates on Twitter during the meeting earlier that evening.   Twitter is a transparent medium and any member of the public can follow what is going on with their government.   Contrast this with private emails that might be circulated among council members.   Even the HerlandNet (in a follow-up article) stated: “We applaud Gregerson for ‘tweeting’ from the hearing — it’s a step forward in government transparency when an official shares her thoughts and observations with the public in real time.”

For those not familiar with Twitter, it is a “micro-blogging” service that allows users to posts short updates of about 30 words at a time.   Twitter is a medium that has a reputation for being somewhat trivial, and it is true that some celebrities use it to post the most inane details of their lives.   But Twitter has the capability to transform government.   It is through Twitter and other social media that the world has had a steady stream of information on the Iranian election protests after all the journalists had been deported or jailed.  See “Twitter Tells Tale of Iranian Election“.   Here at home, wouldn’t Twitter posts during a meeting alert the public when a certain topic came up on the agenda?   How many times have you sat through a meeting for hours waiting for a certain subject to come up?  The meeting that was occurring on the night in question in Mukilteo was not even a city council meeting, it was a meeting of the Boundary Review Board.  Zzzzzzzzzz………  Who would want to sit through three hours of that?  Do we really think the council members would want to talk about that meeting in their spare time?

Despite the HeraldNet’s headline about “possibly illegal meetings,” the online readers seemed to recognize that the matter was largely blown out of proportion.   Many readers commented that it was a tempest in a teapot.   It is apparent that Councilman Kevin Stolz had an ax to grind, and was using the media to go after his rivals on the city council.

The Colville City Council recently voted unanimously to go forward with a feasibility study for a new airport that would be constructed in the area of Aladdin Road in Colville. Many members of the public in Stevens County are up in arms over this due to environmental concerns. Judging by the letters to the editor and discussions with a few of the locals, the city may have a fight on their hands.

The Statesmen-Examiner reported that people living near the planned airport expressed concerns at the public meeting about the noise of a new airport. In addition the public expressed concerns about air pollution and the threat to the city aquifer. Although I have dealt with issues of ground water contamination before, I have never dealt with the subject of contamination from an airport. A lot of the letters to the editor in the Statesmen-Examiner raised some pretty serious environmental fears. One letter wrote:

The airport would be built directly over the Colville aquifer, the source of Colville’s water. Concerns were expressed that the building on this land will compromise the integrity of the aquifer. Former pilots gave personal accounts of fuel leakage and ground contamination at other airports, stating, “over time, jet fuels will even seep through concrete.”

This seemed a little far fetched to me. It seemed to me that the leakage of jet fuels would be pretty minimal, and it seemed that such fuel would be quite light, and would not permeate concrete. So I called an independent source that I know on the East Coast who works as an expert witness on the subject of ground water contamination. He is pretty sensible in his assessments of environmental threats. He told me that airports are in fact significant sources of groundwater contamination from jet fuels and solvents, and that all airports have some level of contamination associated with them. He explained that contamination comes from broken fuel lines, fueling accidents, painting stations, repair shops etc. He explained that concrete is in fact permeable. He said that the permeability of concrete is low, but even if just a small bit of contaminant permeates into the water it will violate standards.

I learned not to take drinking water for granted earlier this year. In my town, residents were forced to boil our water for three weeks when it was determined that E. coli had been found in the water. This was a little bit of an eye opener for me. But boiling water contaminated with fuels or solvents won’t help. When our water was contaminated, I wondered what small cities can do to fix the problem when they are financially unable solve the problem.

So, as to the proposed new airport in Colville, when is the proper time to consider the impact on the aquifer? Right now the city is just doing a feasibility study. Yet Stevens County residents complained about the cost of that study. Should a threshold determination be made to determine whether the airport location would be even environmentally possible? Or would the subject wait years later until an environmental impact statement is done? One question that I have is whether or not the area is an aquifer recharge area. If so, it is customary for a lot of airport functions and activities to be banned out right.

The other subject that came up in the letters to the editor was the subject of air pollution. It would be interesting to hear what an expert would say about this. Some comments by members of the public were about the severe winds in the area of the airport. Other members of the public mentioned that the area was prone to stagnant air that would allow air pollution to accumulate. Maybe the weather varies.

In the last two weeks, all the letters to the editor in the Statesman Examiner have been opposed to the new airport and the feasibility study. The Statesman Examiner typically has a policy of limiting letters to the editor to 300 words, but allowed one letter that was close to 2000 words and took about nearly ½ a page. It will be interesting to see if supporters of the airport or of the feasibility study will submit any letters to the editor this week.

Aside from any environmental concerns, some members of the public did not want the airport because it would involve the condemning of private lands. Although people tend to forget this sometimes, cities have similar powers to condemn private land for a public purpose and pay the land owner just compensation, just the state and federal governments can do. It is one thing when you are a farmer and you lose part of your land because of Interstate 90. It is another thing when your land is taken by a local city council on a project that you and the community do not think is worthwhile in the first place. In the past, city governments could vote to authorize land to be taken without any special notice to the landowner in advance. But under a new law enacted in 2007 (RCW 8.25.290) a city must send a certified letter to each landowner who might face the condemnation of his land. The notice must contain a description of the property to be taken, and must notify the land owner of the date and time of the public hearing at which time the condemner (the city) will decide whether or not to authorize the condemnation of the private land. In cases that I have defended in the past, it seems as if sometimes governments go out of their way to find an appraiser that is particularly conservative. As an attorney, I have found that hard feelings are common in these small-town condemnations because oftentimes the city council members are the friends and neighbors of the landowners. If a condemnation is fought in court, a judge decides whether the condemnation is for a public purpose, and a jury decides the amount the landowner should receive.  The lawyer for the landowner commonly seeks his or her own expert to testify as to the value.

It will be interesting to see what the feasibility study comes up with. If the study encourages the City of Colville to go forward with the airport as planned, it will more be interesting to see what comes of this issue.

I know, I know, the election is over a year away, but a year goes fast in politics.  And it is never to early to talk about who you might want to see on the ballot next year. Below are four possible names to consider.  The list consists of gentlemen who have run for Sheriff in the past or have been “nominated” by people making comments in my blog.  See May 24th’s Poll for Ferry County Sheriff.  Keep in mind that none of these men have announced any candidacies, but we can give them encouragement right now.  As for me, I am undecided for now as to who I think would be best.

Feel free to comment on why you think each person would be good for the job too.  (Comments that are positive about the person you are encouraging to run will be more likely to be posted then negative comments about who you do not want to run.)

I went to see the art opening for Western painter Everett Russell at the Gold Mountains Arts Gallery last Friday night. Everett and his wife were there. Everett’s art reminds me about some of the reasons I like living out West.

Everett Russell lives in my town, and one of his murals greets visitors on the side of a prominent building in town. Although many of his paintings are of Ferry County, some of my favorites are paintings that he has done of the South West. At the Gold Mountains Arts Gallery he has a painting that he did while traveling in Southern Utah. In my opinion, Everett Russell is old-school and focuses on his art, and doesn’t engage in a lot of self-promotion. Some day I would like to buy a couple of his paintings for my law office.

Earlier this week many local Native-American tribes protested the Federal government policies restricting their rights to cross the Canadian border. The problem had been brewing for some time. See High Country News.

When I first moved to Ferry County in 1996, it seemed as if this was the county that was poised to enter big legal battles with the Colville Confederated Tribes.  The two governments were set to square off over who had primary jurisdiction to regulate land owned by non-Tribal members on the Reservation.  The subject dominated local politics and was the subject of frequent letters to the editor.  The Tribes were rumored to have a “million dollar war chest” to fund any litigation with the county.  The county commissioners appointed me county attorney in April 1998, and I urged caution on the part of the county. When you are looking for a good “test case” to bring to court, you don’t necessarily want to join the side of the first non-Tribal landowner to raise his hand.  In the end, a legal battle was avoided, and in my opinion Ferry County and the Tribes have worked together fairly well for the last ten years.

So I am glad to see that it was the Federal government this time that has drawn the ire of the Colville Tribes and has been accused of violating treaty rights.  This has come to the media’s attention rather recently as Tribal members have become fed up with being harassed by U.S. Border officials as they travel to and from their ancestral homelands across the border in British Columbia.  As someone who lives near the border myself, I have often found it frustrating to deal with border officials when I travel to Canada.  In addition, as an attorney I often represent defendants who get caught up in border issues.  The difference, of course, is that local Tribal members have special treaty rights to cross the border.  Under the Jay Treaty of 1794, Native-Americans were granted the right to engage in trade and travel between the United States and Canada, which was then British Territory.  Until 9/11 no one seemed to question the rights of Tribal members to travel to and from Canada with just their tribal ID cards.  But now, there is pressure on the Tribal members to give up the ID cards of their own government and to use passports or state enhanced drivers licenses. Local tribes are now considering issuing their own passports.

This controversy boiled over on June 1st as local Native Americans and Tribal members from Canada staged a protest in the border town of Night Hawk.  The protest was peaceful, but the Omak-Chronicle reported that it involved the removal of a border fence.  The Border Patrol did not try to intervene as the Tribal members crossed the border and back again.  I have to hand it to these protesters.  It took courage to take that step. I would have half expected the Feds to arrest some of them.  But I guess then it would have become a national story, rather than just a regional story.  I hope the Tribes pursue their rights in this respect.  Often it is the local governments or the States that are accused of violating treaty rights,  the Tribes are right to stand up to the Federal government too.  The Tribes in the U.S. sometimes seem to be the favorite underdog of the federal judiciary.  I can easily see the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals approving the rights of Tribal members to set up their own border check point.  However, unlike 10 years ago, when the Colville Confederated Tribes had money set aside for litigation, the Tribes now are suffering a budget crisis.  This border issue is something that I will try to follow closely.

What do you think?  What will come of this issue?  Is it fair to ask Native Americans to use State ID cards when they enjoy rights to sovereignty?