HB 2080 Vacating Convictions for Certain Tribal Fishing Activities...BILL PASSED

[bigtex]

HB 2080 was actually introduced June 25 during the 2013 legislature's 2nd special session however it is not having it's first committee hearing date until January 14th, and will be voted on in committee on the 17th. The bill would allow tribal members who were convicted of fishing violations prior to 1/1/1975 to have their convictions vacated if the actions were deemed to be lawful under the court decision of US v Washington. Basically, the people who were convicted during the "fish wars" can have their convictions vacated.

Now some of you may know that under state law basically anybody can petition the court for vacation of crimes they have committed, so why do we need this bill. Lets look at the wording. The wording for all other crimes as written into law "If the court finds the applicant meets the tests prescribed in subsection (2) of this section, the court may in its discretion vacate the record of conviction..." The wording under the proposed tribal section, "the court shall vacate the record of conviction if..." Basically the court has discretion to vacate other offenses, but will not have discretion to vacate the tribal fishing convictions.

The bill:
Every person convicted prior to January 1, 1975, of violating any statute or rule regarding the regulation of fishing activities, including, but not limited to, RCW 75.08.260, 75.12.060, 75.12.070, 75.12.160, 77.16.020, 77.16.030, 77.16.040, 77.16.060, and 77.16.240 who claimed to be exercising a treaty Indian fishing right, may apply to the sentencing court for vacation of the applicant's record of the misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony conviction for the offense.

Notwithstanding the requirements of RCW 9.94A.640, the court shall vacate the record of conviction if:
(a) The applicant is a member of a tribe that may exercise treaty Indian fishing rights at the location where the offense occurred; and
(b) The state has been enjoined from taking enforcement action of the statute or rule to the extent that it interferes with a treaty Indian fishing right as determined under United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), any posttrial orders of that court, or any other state supreme court or federal court decision.

Bill sponsors are Sawyer, Zeiger, Appleton, Angel, DeBolt, Blake, Haler, McCoy, Wilcox, Fitzgibbon, Hurst, Freeman, Hunt, Santos, and Ryu

http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=2080&year=2013

[Swannytheswan]

I voted no for the simple reason that they already can have them vacated without the legislature interfering if there is a reason for it not to be vacated the court SHOULD have discretion not too. why handcuff the court?

[bigtex]

Several tribal members testified in favor of this bill. The committee voted on the bill on Friday, I still haven't heard the results.

[Knocker of rocks]

These are forty year old violations during the time leading up to the Boldt decision

[ICEMAN]

Will non-tribal members get the same consideration? 

IE: have legislators stepped forward to get pre-01/01/1975 convictions vacated for non-indians?



So we now have a propsed law that will give relief based upon ones race? Really?


Heck no. I do not support the bill.

[bigtex]

Anybody can go in today and get a conviction vacated. These tribal members can go in today and get these convictions vacated. However, right now the court has discretion whether or not to vacate these crimes.

Under this bill, the court will not have discretion and must grant the vacation of these crimes relating to tribal members.

[ICEMAN]

Anybody can go in today and get a conviction vacated. These tribal members can go in today and get these convictions vacated. However, right now the court has discretion whether or not to vacate these crimes.

Under this bill, the court will not have discretion and must grant the vacation of these crimes relating to tribal members.

Funny, when you look at the reality of some of these bills....  IMHO, this is not a good bill as it is directed only at helping once race of people.

Not everyone who attempts to get their convictions vacated actually gets them vacated. But, if you are a tribal member, this will be your newly awarded right. They must vacate the conviction. Nice.

I am a big fan of letting the current legislation work. I see no reason to draw this race-line between those prosecuted in this state.

Can you imagine changing the wording in the proposed legislation to benefit white people only?

[Swatson]

Anybody can go in today and get a conviction vacated. These tribal members can go in today and get these convictions vacated. However, right now the court has discretion whether or not to vacate these crimes.

Under this bill, the court will not have discretion and must grant the vacation of these crimes relating to tribal members.

Funny, when you look at the reality of some of these bills....  IMHO, this is not a good bill as it is directed only at helping once race of people.

Not everyone who attempts to get their convictions vacated actually gets them vacated. But, if you are a tribal member, this will be your newly awarded right. They must vacate the conviction. Nice.

I am a big fan of letting the current legislation work. I see no reason to draw this race-line between those prosecuted in this state.

Can you imagine changing the wording in the proposed legislation to benefit white people only?

    

[bigtex]

With this bill we may as well just make a bill that says if you've ever been convicted of a crime, and that offense is now legal, you must have the conviction vacated.

I wonder how many people 21 and over who were convicted of possession of marijuana would be at the courthouse?

[ICEMAN]

Agreed.

Also, Bigtex, maybe in another thread I would love your input regarding tribal member arrests which occur off reservation and the lack of county/state prosecution of these crimes.

[snowpack]

I'm not seeing the problem with this other than being overdue.  They were wrongly charged/convicted (for the fishing--not some of the other associated charges).  Should've been done right after Boldt.  It only focuses on treaty tribal members, not all Indians.

[snowpack]

With this bill we may as well just make a bill that says if you've ever been convicted of a crime, and that offense is now legal, you must have the conviction vacated.

I wonder how many people 21 and over who were convicted of possession of marijuana would be at the courthouse?

I think that is different.  The people in your example were under the laws of the state at the time they committed those crimes.  The fishing thing, those laws never should've applied to those certain tribes to begin with. 

[ICEMAN]

I'm not seeing the problem with this other than being overdue.  They were wrongly charged/convicted (for the fishing--not some of the other associated charges).  Should've been done right after Boldt.  It only focuses on treaty tribal members, not all Indians.

No, actually re-read the posts. The tribal members were legally convicted for crimes that later would not have been crimes.

Should a statuatory rape conviction be removed when the female victim becomes 18yr old?

[trophyhunt]

Anybody can go in today and get a conviction vacated. These tribal members can go in today and get these convictions vacated. However, right now the court has discretion whether or not to vacate these crimes.

Under this bill, the court will not have discretion and must grant the vacation of these crimes relating to tribal members.

Funny, when you look at the reality of some of these bills....  IMHO, this is not a good bill as it is directed only at helping once race of people.

Not everyone who attempts to get their convictions vacated actually gets them vacated. But, if you are a tribal member, this will be your newly awarded right. They must vacate the conviction. Nice.

I am a big fan of letting the current legislation work. I see no reason to draw this race-line between those prosecuted in this state.

Can you imagine changing the wording in the proposed legislation to benefit white people only?

    

i have to agree also, I vote no.

[PlateauNDN]

I'm not seeing the problem with this other than being overdue.  They were wrongly charged/convicted (for the fishing--not some of the other associated charges).  Should've been done right after Boldt.  It only focuses on treaty tribal members, not all Indians.

No, actually re-read the posts. The tribal members were legally convicted for crimes that later would not have been crimes.

Should a statuatory rape conviction be removed when the female victim becomes 18yr old?

Was it ever written or legal for the female or the male to commit the act?  That's the question?  Was it ever legal to commit statutory rape? Was there a treaty or constitution saying it was the right of the person to commit the rape?

I don't think so, but it was written and placed into "the supreme law of the land", thr constitution that we would be able retain and continue to exercise our rights to fishing.

Big difference between rape and guaranteed rights.

Agreed.

Also, Bigtex, maybe in another thread I would love your input regarding tribal member arrests which occur off reservation and the lack of county/state prosecution of these crimes.

Why not ask here since its dealing with jurisdiction issues? Why not ask or give an example?