Here is the news coverage, via Pechanga.
And the tribal court opinion rejecting the challenge the vote, which was negative anyway.
Here is the news coverage, via Pechanga.
And the tribal court opinion rejecting the challenge the vote, which was negative anyway.
Here.
The Federal Court of Appeal recently revisited a 2009 decision from the Federal Court involving the removal of and 10-year prohibition of re-election for the former Chief of Peepeekisis First Nation. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision that there was insufficient evidence to establish that either of the two Councils (which removed the Chief and implemented the prohibition) satisfied the criteria of the Election Act, or custom. Here’s the decision – Bellegarde v. Poitras.
Here is the report:
US Atty Declination on WMAT Referral
Here is our posting of the independent investigative report.
Here is the news coverage from Sault Evening News.
Here is the order:
Election Decision for Cherokees
News coverage here.
A list of key documents from the Tulsa World here:
View Principal Chief Chad Smith’s final campaign disclosure report.
View Bill John Baker’s final campaign disclosure report.
Read the final order invalidating the election.
View an order from the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court.
View Principal Chief Chad Smith’s June 15 campaign financial disclosure report.
View Bill John Baker’s June 15 campaign financial disclosure report.
Read Principal Chief Chad Smith’s appeal.
Read Cherokee Election Commission chairman Roger Johnson’s resignation statement.
Read Cherokee Election Commission chairman Roger Johnson’s resignation letter.
Here.
Darryl Omar Freeman has posted “Neo-Colonial Adaptation or Neo-Sovereignty: Oklahoma Cherokee/African Ancestry Freedmen Conflict” on SSRN.
Might want to do some quick fact checking on Ward Churchill’s membership status with United Keetoowah Band.
Here is a link to the Cherokee court order, via Indianz, and a news article from an informer reader on the issue.
The real question becomes, then, will the vote tally seeming to favor Bill John Baker be sufficient to make irrelevant the votes of the descendants of the Cherokee Freedmen, hopefully mooting this inter-judicial showdown.
I have advocated that tribal courts, in narrow circumstances, should resist federal court orders where the federal court appears to have no other source of jurisdiction but for pure federal common law, such as National Farmers Union. I was thinking, and continue to think, that certain questions of tribal court authority should not concern federal interests — subject areas like tort claims by tribal members against nonmembers who have burned down the entire reservation or tortiously damaged tribal government property and vital materials. But I’d hate to see tribal sovereignty go to the wall to defend the decision of one tribe to clumsily racialize its membership criteria. [I say clumsy because the Dawes rolls are so obviously flawed as to make membership decisions involving the Freedmen with them is negligent at best, and racist at worst.]
The Cherokee Nation Supreme Court could have done what the U.S. Supreme Court has done in circumstances involving international law — defer to the policymaking branches and invoke a form of the political question doctrine. The Court could have simply sat on the case until the dust settled. In fact, it appears both the Nation and the Freedmen descendants asked them to do so. Cherokee already lost millions in HUD money. The tribal court isn’t doing much to alleviate this dispute, and appears to be inflaming it even more.
Here is the article from WaPo, via Pechanga.
Absentee votes, which account for approximately half of the voting, remain to be counted.
You must be logged in to post a comment.