SACRAMENTO — Lawmakers and tribal advocates on Wednesday questioned the impact of the 1953 Public Law 280, also known as PL 280, that transferred public safety responsibility on tribal lands from the federal government to six states, including California, without reimbursing costs.
In 1968, the law was amended to include limited federal funding for crime victims and court development.
Assembly Select Committee Chair James C. Ramos (D-San Bernardino), Public Safety Committee Chair Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) and their members and tribal leaders participated in the roundtable.
Tribal judicial leaders, and police officials dissected how PL 280 has reduced safety on California’s reservations.
“This law has a wide-ranging impact on Indian Country relating to safety. It’s a law that had more to do with protecting non-Native people from Native Americans than protecting tribal people,” Ramos said.
Carole Goldberg, distinguished research professor of law at University of California, Los Angeles provided an overview of PL 280’s background and impact.
“Public Law 280 has a highly problematic origin story,” Goldberg said. “At the time it was enacted, the federal government was pursuing a policy known as termination, which denied Native nations’ sovereignty, disavowed the federal government’s trust responsibility for safety in tribal communities, and promoted forced assimilation of Native peoples by subjecting them to state law.”
Judge Abby Abinanti of the Yurok Tribal Court said passage of PL 280 was a “joke on all of us.”
The six “mandatory” states under PL 280 include California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin and Alaska. Ramos noted that the law has weakened tribal safety and contributed to the epidemic of Missing and Murdered Indigenous People, or MMIP.
“PL 280 has resulted in jurisdictional confusion, lack of trust between tribes and outside law enforcement, and a lack of resources for tribal police and courts,” Ramos said. “There’s a myth out there that all tribes are gambling tribes, but that’s not at all the case. PL 280 states rank higher in the country than other states in the number of their MMIP cases.”
Ramos said input from the roundtable will assist in refining proposed legislation to work around PL 280’s flaws.
Ramos introduced AB 2138 earlier this year which deals with policing on tribal lands. AB 2138 is expected to be heard in April.
State lawmakers, tribal leaders review impact of controversial federal law on tribal safety
- Lake County News reports
- Posted On