Does a particular state law apply to an Indian reservation or to tribal members?

"[T]here is no rigid rule by which to resolve the question whether a particular state law may be applied to an Indian reservation or to tribal members." (White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker (1980) 448 U.S. 136, 142, 100 S.Ct. 2578, 2583, 65 L.Ed.2d 665 [hereafter White Mountain [36 Cal.3d 525] Apache Tribe].) However, the traditional notions of Indian self-government which are "deeply engrained in our jurisprudence" provide a crucial " 'backdrop' " in answering such a question. (Id., at p. 143, 100 S.Ct. at 2583.)

Page 647

[685 P.2d 691] The United States Supreme Court has cautioned that "[i]t must always be remembered that the various Indian tribes were once independent and sovereign nations, and that their claim to sovereignty long predates that of our own Government." (McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n. (1973) 411 U.S. 164, 172, 93 S.Ct. 1257, 1262, 36 L.Ed.2d 129.) The status of these tribes has been described as " ' "an anomalous one and of complex character," ' for despite their partial assimilation into American culture, the tribes have retained ' "a semi-independent position ... not as States, not as nations, not as possessed of the full attributes of sovereignty, but as a separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations...." ' " (White Mountain Apache Tribe, supra, 448 U.S. at p. 142, 100 S.Ct. at p. 2583.)