Reflections on the elections

• All of the candidates court the absentee vote, then the losers complain about the absentee vote if they don't win.

By Dan Agent
Editor

Elections and campaigns for office can bring out the best and worst in the candidates, whether it's national, state, local elections or tribal politics. As we witness the various candidates in their campaigns for election in 2004, the competition and conflict in the 2003 Cherokee tribal election deserves revisiting and reflection, especially regarding the Cherokee absentee ballots.

In June 2003, we began publishing on a monthly basis for the first time in several years, providing nearly 250,000 Cherokee citizens in nearly 98,000 households with an editorially independent tribal newspaper. In that issue the results of the 2003 tribal election - the seventh since the ratification in 1976 of the so-called "modern" Cherokee Nation constitution - were reported.

After the initial results were announced and reported in the June 2003 issue, losing candidates for chief, deputy chief and some of the losing councilors began filing protests, first with the Cherokee Nation Election Commission then with the Cherokee Nation Judicial Appeals Tribunal. The JAT on June 16, 2003, dismissed the suit brought by the candidates for chief and deputy chief, stating the candidates attorney had not presented sufficient evidence to warrant a new election. The next day, the court dismissed the councilors' appeal for a new election, with one justice dissenting, and ordered the certification of the election.

Upon examining the evidence, the JAT did find "several problems with absentee ballots," but not enough that the final outcome of the election would have been changed. Those problems are being addressed with election law reform, and citizens are being asked to provide input at various meetings throughout the Cherokee Nation.

The final tally was 7,303 for Chad Smith and 5,457 for Joe Byrd. Smith received 3,653 absentee votes and Byrd received 1,624, but it's interesting to note that citizens who reside in the 14-county jurisdiction cast 2,183 of those absentee ballots.

Every four years after each tribal election, the same refrain is heard by some of the losing candidates that he or she lost due to the absentee vote.

It's time to abandon that reasoning because it's simply not true. Candidates are elected by the votes of Cherokees residing within the 14-county jurisdiction and Cherokees who live outside the jurisdiction but who vote by absentee ballot. And just because they might reside outside of the jurisdictional area, they are no less Cherokee citizens than those who live within it.

The elected leaders have an obligation to serve all Cherokee citizens, no matter where they live. Those citizens who live outside of the 14-county area are kept informed by the tribal newspaper, other hometown newspapers, the Cherokee Nation Web site and various other sources, including contact with relatives and periodic visits home. The Cherokee Phoenix is mailed to nearly 98,000 households - 39,000 in the 14-county jurisdiction and 59,000 households located outside of the jurisdiction.

All of the candidates court the absentee vote, then the losers complain about the absentee vote if they don't win. Regarding the 2003 election, 2,183 of 5,277 absentee ballots were cast by Cherokees living within the historical boundaries but who chose to vote by absentee in a district rather than their "home" district due to jobs or school or whatever reason. Some of the absentee ballots were cast by Cherokees on active duty in the military. Voting by absentee ballot is a right in the political system of the United States and the policy of the Cherokee Nation. Yet, there are some that want to deny that privilege of citizenship merely because their candidacy or their preferred candidates do not get the majority of absentee ballots.

Ironically, when the losing candidates challenged the results of the 2003 tribal election, contending they lost due to the absentee ballot, they protested that the number of absentee ballots made were fewer than the number in the 1999 election. On one hand, they opposed the absentee vote; on the other, they opposed the fact that less absentee votes were cast in 2003 than in 1999!

The quadrennial whine and refrain about losing due to the absentee ballot serves no purpose and plants seeds of deception in other places.

On Dec. 4, 2003, the Eastern Band of Cherokees held a referendum on absentee balloting and voted for restrictions on absentee balloting. Now, if they want to vote, Eastern Band citizens living off of the Qualla Boundary Reservation must return to their homeland to vote if they don't meet the requirements of those restrictions.

The sovereign Eastern Band of Cherokees has the right to conduct their elections, but a group that supported the restrictions took inappropriate and classless action in placing ads for the restrictions that referenced the Cherokee Nation.

On page 9 of the Dec. 3, 2003, Cherokee One Feather, the Eastern Band of Cherokees tribal newspaper, a full-page ad supporting restrictions of absentee voting of Eastern Band citizens included some base misrepresentation of the facts about the Cherokee Nation, including tribal membership and the impact of absentee voting on the Cherokee Nation elections. Joe Martin, editor of the Cherokee One Feather, informed me that the ad was placed by a "quickly-formed political action committee" that included at least one former Eastern Band councilor. The ad called for yes votes to require Eastern Band Cherokees to come home to vote in tribal elections and the elimination of absentee ballots, which may or may not serve the Eastern Band well. In reference to the Cherokee Nation, excerpts read as follows:

In the mid-1970s, the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma had 45, 000 members.

Today, because of absentee voting and changes to their rolls, they have close to 300,000 members.

Absentee voters elected most of the western nation's leaders, and they control most of the referendum issues.

If the "NO" vote wins, it will be a matter of time before alcohol comes to Cherokee. It will be a matter of time before our blood degree is dropped! We will no longer be a unique group of Cherokee Indians. We will be overwhelmed like the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma!

Now, I can't begin to guess how the Cherokee Nation is "overwhelmed," but it appears to mean by "alcohol" and a "dropped blood degree." However, I do know that such comparisons, valid or not, have no place in the tribal elections of the Cherokee Nation or our Eastern Band relatives. And whoever placed it is uninformed about the facts.

"Absentee voting and changes to their rolls" have absolutely nothing to do with increase over time to the total of 248,813 citizens on the Cherokee Nation rolls.

Each sovereign Indian nation has the right to determine the requirements for citizenship. When the Cherokee Nation Constitution was approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1975 and by referendum in 1976, Article III, Section 1, stated:

All members of the Cherokee Nation must be citizens as proven by reference to the Dawes Commission Rolls, including the Delaware Cherokees of Article II of the Delaware agreement dated the 8th day of May, 1867, and the Shawnee Cherokees as of Article III of the Shawnee Agreement dated the 9th day of June, 1869, and/or their descendants. There was and is no blood quantum requirement.

The only "change" to Cherokee Nation "rolls" is an increase in citizens, primarily by those citizens researching their genealogical roots and determining that the ancestors are on the Dawes Rolls. "Absentee voting" has absolutely nothing to do with the increase.

The statement in the ad that "Absentee voters elected most of the western nation's leaders, and they control most referendum issues" is equally inaccurate.

For example, in the 2003 Cherokee Nation general election, an almost equal number of voters living in the 14-county jurisdiction - 3,542 - and absentee voters - 3,454 - approved the referendum on the constitutional amendment. Opposition to the referendum was higher in the nine districts - 2,608 to 1,610 absentee votes - but the issue was not determined by the absentee vote.

Moreover, it is inaccurate for any candidate for office in the Cherokee Nation or anyone from the Eastern Band to conclude that a candidate was elected due to absentee ballots under the assumption that absentee ballots came from Cherokee citizens in California or any other state. Cherokees living in the 14-county jurisdiction, but who chose to vote from another district cast 41 percent of the absentee ballots. They vote by absentee because they want to have a say in who may represent their grandparents or parents in their home district.

The real tragedy is that only 34,383 of the 202,114 eligible Cherokees are registered to vote in the tribal elections. And a mere 12,760 or 37 percent of the registered voters or 6 percent of potential Cherokees voters voted in the 2003 election. Instead of complaining about the election results and making excuses for losing, the greater benefit to the citizens of the Cherokee Nation would be to spend the time before the November election and the next tribal election working to get the 167,731 Cherokee citizens who do not vote registered to vote, not only in the tribal election but local, state and national elections, as well. If that were done, Cherokee voters could make a substantial impact on their local, state, national and tribal governments.