Lawmakers have proposed two bills this session that aim to resolve a long-standing law enforcement dispute between the state of Montana, Lake County and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. This story also appeared in ICT At the center of the c onflict is Public Law 280, a federal law that shifts law enforcement jurisdiction on some Indian reservations from the federal government to certain states. While Public Law 280 was mandatory for six states when it was enacted in 1953, in Montana individual counties or the entire state could choose to opt in. Unlike the original federal law, a Montana law required tribal consent. In 1965, frustrated with what they said was insufficient federal policing and inadequate resources at the tribal level, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) consented to implementing Public Law 280 on the Flathead Reservation. Since then, local county law enforcement — rather than federal entities like the FBI and Bureau of Indian Affairs — has had jurisdiction over accusations of felony crimes committed by tribal members on the Flathead Reservation. And for the last 30 years, the CSKT have investigated claims of misdemeanors committed by tribal members, helping shoulder the jurisdictional burden. The two bills proposed this session come from non-Native Lake County lawmakers. The proposals take different approaches to addressing the funding question, and one has garnered support from CSKT leadership as well as the lieutenant governor. THE PUBLIC LAW 280 CONFLICT IN MONTANALake County in northwest Montana overlaps with much of the Flathead Indian Reservation. In the 1960s Lake County officials supported Public Law 280, saying it would help combat crime on the reservation, but attitudes have shifted in the decades since. Because the federal law is unfunded, Lake County officials have for years said it is burdensome to taxpayers. Where county leaders argue the state should reimburse Lake County for the law enforcement services it provides on the reservation, Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte has maintained that funding Public Law 280 is the responsibility of individual counties, not the state.  The conflict has serious implications for Native and non-Native Lake County residents as it could change which law enforcement entity — state, tribal or federal — has jurisdiction over certain crimes committed on the reservation.County officials have over the years turned to the courts and the Legislature to resolve the dispute — to no avail. They’ve also threatened to withdraw from the agreement altogether, which would kick jurisdictional responsibility to the state. In 2021, the Legislature appropriated $1 to Lake County for exercising jurisdiction on the Flathead Reservation — an amount a Montana judge later called “patently absurd.” And last legislative session, Gianforte vetoed a bill that would have sent $5 million in state money to the Montana Department of Justice to offset costs for Lake County over a two-year period. The bill also would’ve created a Public Law 280 task force, and it would have prevented Lake County from withdrawing from the Public Law 280 agreement in the future. In his 2023 veto letter, Gianforte wrote that reimbursing Lake County would create “a slippery slope at the end of which we can expect another request for funding in 2025 from Lake County — and any other counties experiencing financial pressures in enforcing state criminal jurisdiction within their boundaries.”  2 BILLS AIM TO RESOLVE YEARS-LONG DISPUTEThis session, two lawmakers have brought bills they say will remedy the conflict.Rep. Tracy Sharp, a Republican from Polson, sponsored House Bill 366 that would provide $5 million to reimburse Lake County over the next two years. Unlike the bill Gianforte vetoed last session, Sharp’s bill does not prohibit Lake County from eventually withdrawing from the agreement. Sharp’s bill was heard early in February and as of March 17, it had not passed out of the House Judiciary Committee. While Sharp called Public Law 280 “a model for law enforcement on the reservation” in a February House Judiciary Committee hearing, he added that “Lake County and Lake County’s taxpayers, tribal and non-tribal, simply cannot afford to bear the financial burden of Public Law 280 any longer.”No one spoke in support of Sharp’s bill. The bill’s only opponent, Keaton Sunchild with Western Native Voice, offered what he called “soft opposition,” saying the organization would like to see more consultation with the CSKT on the matter. Several lawmakers on the committee noted the lack of testimony from state or tribal representatives, saying their perspectives would help inform their votes.Sharp earlier this session proposed a bill to open parts of the Flathead Reservation to non-tribal landowners, which drew sharp criticism from the CSKT and ultimately failed. In February, Sen. Greg Hertz, a Republican from Polson, introduced his own Public Law 280 bill, which as of March 15 had made its way through the Senate and will be heard in the House.In a February hearing before the Senate Finance and Claims Committee, Lt. Gov. Kristen Juras spoke in support of Senate Bill 393 — a notable departure from the governor’s past opposition to Public Law 280 legislation.“The governor supports a one-time only solution to help with the tribes and the state transition to a solution where both of them can contribute financially to the ongoing costs of enforcement,” she said.When asked if Gianforte would sign Public Law 280 legislation this session, a spokesperson told Montana Free Press the governor “will consider any bill that makes it to his desk.”Lake County Commissioner William Barron and CSKT secretary Martin Charlo also supported Hertz’s bill in testimony before the committee. Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy, D-Box Elder and whose district overlaps with six counties and three reservations, criticized the bill on the Senate Floor, calling it unfair. “What about the other 55 counties?” he asked. “What about the other six tribes?”SB 393 does not yet contain a fiscal note prepared by the governor’s budget office that would estimate its price tag. But Hertz said the funding level will be determined by the House. “[Between] $5-7 million is the range,” Hertz told MTFP. “That’s what the governor’s office talked about.”In their testimonies, both Sharp and Hertz alluded to the possibility of Lake County withdrawing from the Public Law 280 agreement. If the county were to withdraw, Hertz said the state would assume jurisdiction and could end up spending $100 million to build new facilities and establish new police forces. Rep. Shelly Fyant, D-Arlee and a citizen of the CSKT, told MTFP she would not support Sharp’s bill but will likely carry Hertz’s bill on the House floor. Fyant said the CSKT and Lake County have been collaborating on SB 393.  “This is the most I have seen them work together [the CSKT and the county] on this issue,” she said.Even with this collaboration and Juras’ support, however, Hertz said he thinks his bill has “a 50-50” chance of crossing the finish line.The post 2 bills aim to resolve law enforcement dispute between state, Lake County and CSKT appeared first on Montana Free Press. ...read more read less