Campio v. Swanaset, (1996)

• Court: Nooksack Tribal Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 17 December 1996
• Citation: Campio v. Swanaset (Nooksack Tribal Ct. of App. 1996)
• Docket Number: NOO-C-496-004
• Parties: SANDRA CAMPION, EDWARD DOUGHERTY, RICK MACWILLIAMS, JEFF WILLIAMS, KAREN WILLIAMS, BRYSON COOPER, HARRY COOPER, HERMAN ALMAJERO, SATURNIO JARVIER, ELIZABETH DILLY, BEATRICE CLINE, BENITA OLSEN, MITCH CLINE, KARIE CLINE, PHILLIP NARTE, PEARL PINK, MABLE ROBERTS, ELVIN CLINE, RANDY JULIAN, TAMI CLINE, SUSAN DIROGATIE, JULIA JEFFERSON, ANGIE MCKAY, DIANTHA DOUCETTE, ROBERT MCKAY, CHRISTIE EDWARDS, GLORIA SORRELL, RICHARD RICO, AND FRANCES WHITE, APPELLANTS v. GEORGE SWANASET, PETER JOSEPH, JOHN DAVIS, LAVERNE COOPER, ROSS CLINE, SHERIE FINKBONNER JOHNNY, BOB RABANG, ROSZELDA ROBERTS, LANE WARBUS, THE NOOKSACK TRIBAL COUNCIL, AND THE 1996 NOOKSACK ELECTION BOARD, RESPONDENTS

SANDRA CAMPION, EDWARD DOUGHERTY, RICK MACWILLIAMS, JEFF WILLIAMS, KAREN WILLIAMS, BRYSON COOPER, HARRY COOPER, HERMAN ALMAJERO, SATURNIO JARVIER, ELIZABETH DILLY, BEATRICE CLINE, BENITA OLSEN, MITCH CLINE, KARIE CLINE, PHILLIP NARTE, PEARL PINK, MABLE ROBERTS, ELVIN CLINE, RANDY JULIAN, TAMI CLINE, SUSAN DIROGATIE, JULIA JEFFERSON, ANGIE MCKAY, DIANTHA DOUCETTE, ROBERT MCKAY, CHRISTIE EDWARDS, GLORIA SORRELL, RICHARD RICO, AND FRANCES WHITE, APPELLANTS v. GEORGE SWANASET, PETER JOSEPH, JOHN DAVIS, LAVERNE COOPER, ROSS CLINE, SHERIE FINKBONNER JOHNNY, BOB RABANG, ROSZELDA ROBERTS, LANE WARBUS, THE NOOKSACK TRIBAL COUNCIL, AND THE 1996 NOOKSACK ELECTION BOARD, RESPONDENTS

No. NOO-C-496-004

Nooksack Tribal Court Of Appeals Nooksack Indian Reservation Deming, Washington

December 17, 1996

James Purcell, attorney for Appellants; Richard Baum, attorney for Respondents.

SUMMARY

Appeal of trial court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellants (plaintiffs below) challenged constitutionality of certain actions of the Election Board. Trial court held that tribal court has no jurisdiction to review actions of the Election Committee and dismissed. We remand to trial court for trial.

Before: Elbridge Coochise, Chief Justice; Charles R. Hostnik Justice; and Douglas W. Hutchinson, Justice.

This matter came before the Nooksack Tribal Court of Appeals for oral argument on November 12, 1996. Appellants are individual Tribal members appealing the trial court's July 3, 1996 Order Denying Reconsideration.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On November 1, 1995 the Nooksack Tribal Council enacted the Nooksack Tribal Election Ordinance of 1996 (Title 62A) which (1) amended the previous election ordinance, (2) set the 1996 Tribal Council election for March 9, 1996, and (3) provided for the appointment of an Election Board whose duties were to "administer and conduct the election." The Election Ordinance required the Election Board to notify voters of the election by mailing a notice to all qualified voters and to post the notice in four specified locations.

The parties do not dispute that the election notice was not posted at any of the four required sites; however, notice was posted at the Tribal Center. Neither do the parties dispute that the 1996 eligible-voter mailing list was compiled from the tribal newsletter mailing list and contained approximately 263 individual tribal members. There are 955 tribal members who meet the Nooksack Constitution's requirement that one be a tribal member and over the age of eighteen to be eligible to vote. See Nooksack Tribal Constitution, art. IV, § 1.

The 1996 Election Ordinance differs from previous election ordinances in two respects: (1) absentee balloting was eliminated, and (2) as a condition of voting in the 1996 election, all Nooksack voters were required to register to vote by a given date. Appellants challenge the constitutionality of both provisions.

Three weeks after the March 9, 1996 election eight individual tribal members filed a complaint against eight other tribal members and the Nooksack Tribal Council. Plaintiffs alleged that they and other eligible voters had been deprived of their right to vote by Defendants' enactment and enforcement of the aforementioned 1996 Election Ordinance provisions. Plaintiffs also alleged that the Defendants composing the Election Board violated the Ordinance when they failed to comply with notice requirements.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted on June 7, 1996. On that date, the trial court dismissed the action on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to art. IV, § 4 of the Nooksack Tribal Constitution, which provides that it is the duty of the election board to resolve all election disputes. On June 13, 1996 Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Reconsideration which the trial court denied on July 3, 1996 on the ground that Plaintiffs had offered no new evidence in support of their motion. The trial court declined to revisit the issue of jurisdiction. This appeal followed.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

The issues on appeal before this Court are as follows:

1) Does the Nooksack Tribal Court have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this action?

2) Is the elimination of absentee balloting from the 1996 tribal election constitutional?

3) Is the 1996 Election Ordinance provision which requires all Nooksack voters to register to vote as a condition of voting in the 1996 election constitutional?

4) Did the individuals composing the Election Board fail to comply with the notice requirements of the 1996 Election Ordinance thereby individually and/or collectively violating the Ordinance and depriving eligible voters of their right to vote?

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The first issue with which we are confronted is whether the Nooksack Tribal Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this action. The trial court in its June 7, 1996 Order determined that such jurisdiction was lacking.

The Nooksack Tribal Court is established by art. VI, § 2 of the Nooksack Constitution. The Nooksack Tribal Court is a constitutional court with jurisdiction over such subject matters as defined in art. VI, § 2(A)(3) of the Nooksack Constitution. That section provides as follows:

This court shall have jurisdiction over all Indians on tribal lands; over all civil matters concerning members of the Nooksack Indian Tribe; over all matters concerning the establishment and functions of the tribal government, provided that nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of sovereign immunity by the tribal government; and over all cases or controversies between Indians and non-Indians where such cases are brought before it by stipulation of the non-Indian, provided that the court shall have jurisdiction over civil matters arising on tribal lands without the necessity of stipulations of any parties . .

Insofar as relevant to this case, there are two possible bases of jurisdiction for this action under that constitutional provision. First, this Court has jurisdiction over "all civil matters...