Cherokee Nation court makes term-limit ruling
By Will Chavez
Staff Writer
TAHLEQUAH, Okla. – A May 20 ruling made by the Cherokee Nation District Court states that tribal officials elected in 2007 are serving their first terms under the 2003 CN Constitution.
The ruling upholds a 2007 opinion by CN Attorney General Diane Hammons that states the first term for any elected official under the 2003 Constitution is the term that began in August 2007.
Principal Chief Chad Smith filed a lawsuit in November asking the court to determine if he and some Tribal Councilors were eligible to run for re-election in 2011. According to the 2003 Constitution, elected officials can hold office for two consecutive terms before sitting out a term.
Smith, who was initially elected principal chief in 1999, is serving in his third consecutive term, but only his first under the 2003 Constitution, according to the ruling.
He has said he plans to seek a fourth term but wanted “to resolve any outstanding issues” with the lawsuit before the 2011 election.
“I’m proud of the work our employees have done, creating nearly 5,000 jobs at the Cherokee Nation and our businesses since I’ve been in office, while also creating the largest budget for services in the history of our nation, and I look forward to running again in 2011 so we can keep building on that success,” he said.
The 2003 Constitution was written during a 1999 Constitutional Convention and sets the term limit for elected officials of the legislative and executive branches. Cherokee voters ratified the constitution in August 2003, but it took a 2006 ruling from the tribe’s top court, then the Judicial Appeals Tribunal, before it became effective.
Since the 2006 ruling, the CN government has expanded. The JAT added two justices and became the Supreme Court. The council added two At-Large representatives, while the chief’s office reduced its Cabinet from five members to three and added the offices of attorney general and marshal.
May’s ruling by Judge Bart Fite states the court found that only elections held under “the power of the 2003 Constitution shall count for the purposes of the present term limits.” The 2007 tribal election was the first election held under the 2003 Constitution.
The court also ruled that six-year terms for certain Tribal Councilors are appropriate. Nine of the 17 Tribal Councilors are serving six-year terms with their terms expiring in 2013. The remaining eight council members are serving four-year terms with their terms expiring in 2011.
Councilors approved the staggered terms, but Smith included the issue in the lawsuit.
“I didn’t think there was ever any doubt that they (six-year terms) were legal. We were under court order to stagger the terms,” Dist. 1 Tribal Councilor Bill John Baker, who is serving a six-year term, said. “Even though the constitution says a normal term is four years, the only way that we could have possibly staggered terms would have been to either have people run for a two-year term or have people run for a six-year term.”
Baker said a two-year term made less sense than a six-year term.
“It made more sense to have people spend their money to run for election and choose a six-year term or a four-year term,” he said.
Baker said he didn’t agree with the court’s term limits decision despite it allowing him to run for re-election in 2013.
“Just because it says it says I’m in my first term doesn’t make it any righter,” he said.
Dist. 9 Tribal Councilor Chuck Hoskin, who is serving a six-year term, said he agreed with the court’s decision on term limits, but as for creating staggered legislative terms there was no easy way.
“The question comes down to, do you make an abnormally small term for a councilor to serve his constituents or do you make an abnormally larger term. I think erring on the side of a larger term is appropriate. I think that’s what the court did,” he said.
Smith said it was important the resolve both issues now rather than on the eve of an election.
“If someone brought this case two years from now it could have thrown the election process into confusion. The last thing the Cherokee Nation needs is for our citizens to be confused about who can and cannot be candidates in any given election, and that’s why I felt it was important to resolve these issues now,” he said.