Projects
American Indian Community Data Profile, 2002
Namadji Youth and Elders Project Report, 2001
Forum Reports
1997 Fall: Tribal Sovereignty and
American Indian Leadership
1996 Fall: Tribal Governments: What will they look like in the year 2010?
1996 Spring: The Threatened State of Tribal Sovereignty
Tribal Governments in 2010 - Tribal Elections
The sessions on tribal elections were led by Paul Day, attorney and enrolled member of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. As a backdrop to the central issue of tribal elections, Day highlighted issues about the passing on of Indian culture, traditions, language and religion. Day raised several questions which focused on the intersection of tribal elections and leadership. He asked: how do we as American Indians ensure that our leaders are equipped to guide us in both the traditional Indian ways as well as the non-Indian ways of today's society? And what processes do we use to make these choices individually and collectively?
Most tribes have established an election process that has been labeled incomplete in some aspects. As with any process, the unexplained gray crease may present conflicts and disagreements. If tribes are unable to resolve these problems through a procedure designated by American Indians, the remedy may be taken to the federal court system, which could negatively impact tribal sovereignty.
The complexities of tribal elections is illustrated by the 1996 elections on the White Earth reservation in Minnesota. According to the White Earth election ordinance, a relatively short period of time is allocated for contesting election results. As a consequence, individuals protesting the 1996 election results requested more time to access the ballots through the legal process of discovery. Discovery was granted for attorneys and election board members to recount the absentee ballots. The number of absentee ballots decreased by 500 between the time of initial counting and the recount.
A further complication in this case pertained to the financial improprieties of outgoing leaders, who were found guilty of various infractions. Newly elected members took their positions early in an effort to avoid a potential cover-up of financial problems and to avoid vacancies of office. By seating themselves in this manner, the newly elected members acted outside the scope of the White Earth Constitution and Bylaws. The matter, Day stated, was further complicated by the BIA, a branch of the federal government. The BIA approved the self-seating on an interim basis, and in essence, approved the violation of the White Earth Constitution. This act by the BIA test the sovereign status of the tribe. Day raised the question, "Do we as American Indians turn to the tribal courts for the proper procedure in [our] election contests or do we turn to the federal government?" Despite all the controversy surrounding the White Earth case, Day stated that it has created wide discussion among American Indians about the need to address tribal election procedures.
Considerations for Tribal Governments
The White Earth election issues are not unique. Tribes across the country are struggling with these issues. To address election issues, tribal executive committees and Indian communities must ensure that tribal constitutions fully address the election process. For example, tribal constitutions should explicitly6 address the process for contesting elections, the process for designating a judge on election matters, the federal government's role in recognizing tribal officers, the implementation of absentee ballots, the protocol for election proxies and the voting rights of enrolled tribal members who do not live on the reservation.
Day stated that another issues for the six Minnesota Chippewa Tribes to address is representation in the Tribal Executive Committee (TEC). Some questions to consider: will each tribe have equal representation, or will representation be determined by the size of reservation? And what role will the TEC play in deciding and implementing policy?
Tribal Elections and Leadership
Some participants discussed the issue of a lack of qualified leaders within tribal government and the tension that exists for Indian leaders. It was suggested that election to tribal leadership is often based on education and on credentials received from non-Indian entities. These qualifications may work well within the non-Indian community and may even help advance any Indian causes. However, these credentials do not necessarily represent tribal culture, language, religion or other highly-valued American Indian traditions and leadership qualities.
Day reminded participants of the forum's keynote address in which Erma Vizenor recounted a history of tribal councils comprised of mixed-bloods more familiar with non-Indian ways. This history, Day suggested, continues to have an impact on the configurations of tribal governments today. Many tribes have developed a systematic solution to the problem by maintaining of traditional tribal council of elders as well as a tribal council whose leaders may be educated in non-Indian ways.
top | Projects
| Research | Publications
| Links | About Us
| Contact Us | Home
© Copyright 2002, American Indian Policy Center. All Rights
Reserved.
1463 Hewitt Avenue • St. Paul, MN 55104 • tel: 651-644-1728
aipc@cpinternet.com
Last updated:
Tuesday November 1, 2005