Showing posts with label term limits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label term limits. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Tribal Council Continues to Undermine Constitution


Most are aware of the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council's attempt to undermine our Constitution and the good faith of the Cherokee people. Many wonder why the council has decided to try to pass such a law and why they are trying to pass it now. They want to know who could benefit from it.

At this point in time, there are four people who could possibly benefit from the proposed term definition if the tribal council, election commission, or Cherokee Nation courts further try to circumvent the Constitution. Those four are Principal Chief Bill John Baker;  Speaker of the Tribal Council Joe Byrd;  Deputy Speaker of the Tribal Council Victoria Vazquez;  and Secretary of the Tribal Council Frankie Hargis. Together, those four people hold the top position in the Cherokee Nation as well as the top three positions on the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council. Each was elected their first time in the offices they hold under special elections.

During the Rules Committee Meeting on April 28, 2016, several council members and Cherokee Nation Attorney General Todd Hembree vehemently insisted that because the Constitution says a term is four years, the Election Law should match it. No one pointed out that our Election Law already does.

Cherokee Nation Election law has defined term since at least 1985:
"Tenure of the Principal Chief, Deputy Principal Chief, and Council Members shall be a term of four (4) years from the date of August 14, 1979, and each August 14 every four years thereafter except [emphasis mine] for vacancies that are filled in accordance with Article 6, Section 4 and 5 of the Constitution, and Legislative Act 5-76, as amended."
Our law makers intended for term to be a fixed period of time between two specific dates.

The law has changed slightly because we are now governed under a new Constitution, but the intent remains the same. Now our election law says the swearing in of elected officials shall be August 14 of the election year. That is a fixed date and makes it clear when a new term begins.

Currently, tenure (term of office) is defined as:
"Tenure of the Principal Chief, Deputy Principal Chief, and Council Members shall be a term of four (4) years pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 and Article VII, Section 1 of the Constitution, except for vacancies that are filled in accordance with Article VI, Section 13 and Article VII, Section 5 of the Cherokee Nation Constitution."
Notice there are exceptions to the term of office of four years when specific circumstances arise. Those circumstances defined within the Constitution are:

Article VI, Section 13 which states:
"In the case of removal, death, resignation or disability of any Council member, such seat shall be filled by the candidate having the next highest number of votes in that district, who is available and willing to serve and whose eligibility is confirmed by the Election Commission. In the event no such candidate exists, the Council shall fill the vacated seat in the following manner: If a majority of the four-year term remains to be served, the Council shall authorize a special election in the district of the vacated seat to be conducted within ninety days;  if a minority of the four-year term remains to be served, the Council shall elect a replacement who would otherwise be qualified to serve from the district of the vacated seat."
and

Article VII, Section 5 which states:
"The Council may, in the case of removal, death, resignation or disability of the Principal Chief, Deputy Principal Chief and the Speaker of the Council, provide by law what officer shall then act as Principal Chief until the disability be removed or a successor shall be elected."
Under those exceptions, the tenure or term of office of an elected official may be less than four years. The term that started August 14, 2013 for the District 11 Council seat is a good example of that.



Two people, Chuck Hoskin, Jr. and Victoria Vazquez, will have tenure from that full four year term, but neither served the full four years. Hoskin Jr. resigned after being appointed as Secretary of State. Resignations are one of the exceptions where our election law defers to our Constitution. Though tenure of elected officials is defined as four years in our election law, it can be shorter than four years due to those exceptions listed in our Constitution. That is what occurred when Hoskin Jr. resigned the term and Vazquez was elected to finish it.

That term started August 14, 2013 and will end August 14, 2017 when the next elected official for that council seat is sworn into office. Terms are fixed and defined by election law within the confines of the Constitution. They cannot be changed. The Constitution specifically states that Council members shall be elected in the GENERAL ELECTION for a term of four years and that voters should elect the Principal Chief on the same day, in the same manner as they vote for Council. This shows that the tenure of four years is intended to match the fixed term of four years only when one is elected in a GENERAL ELECTION.  

Whether accidental or intentional, it's starting to look like the proposed term definition is a direct attempt to allow officials elected during special elections to circumvent the Constitution and it's term limits. Our Constitution has two statements concerning term limits. 
"No person having been elected to the office of Principal Chief in two (2) consecutive elections shall be eligible to file for the office of Principal Chief in the election next following his or her second term in office."
and
"All Council members shall be limited to two (2) consecutive elected terms on the Council. All Council members having served two consecutive terms must sit out one (1) term before seeking any seat on the Council."
The above sections in red are the words in the Constitution that some councilors are trying to circumvent. By defining term as "full four years", that means any elected official that is voted into office in a special election could serve MORE than two terms. Again, Victoria Vazquez, the sponsor of the legislation, is a good example of how the new definition of term would work.

Vazquez won a special election to serve out the August 14, 2013 - August 14, 2017 term for District 11 after Hoskin Jr. resigned from it. Because she had not served a "full four years", it would not be counted against her in the term limit count set by the Constitution. Despite the fact she was sworn in office on October 22, 2013 and served 3 years, 9 months, and 23 days by August 14, 2017, her time in office would not count as a term under the new definition, therefore she could run for office in both 2017 and 2021, therefore serving a possible 11 years, 9 months and 23 days in office before being forced to sit out due to term limits. This goes directly against the good faith of the Cherokee people who voted to retain term limits. The term limits were set so that no one could serve more than a maximum of 8 years continuously without sitting out at least one term.

The Constitution and Election Laws in place now work together to set terms as a full four years that run from August 14 to August 14, four years later. Tenure or term of office of elected officials is also defined to run concurrent with the fixed period of time of our terms, but only when elected officials are elected in a general election. Those elected in special elections are exceptions and are not afforded a right to a full four years in office. Each candidate that ran in a special election knew they would have a shorter time in office for that term than one who ran in a general election. Bill John Baker, Joe Byrd, and Frankie Hargis have all run again and been elected a second time. All took the oath of office without protest, therefore accepting the fact that their first term in office had ended. 

This proposed legislation not only undermines the Constitution, the intent of the framers of the Constitution, and the good faith of the Cherokee people, but also shows a level of deceit and trickery on the part of our current tribal council that is alarming. Several of those councilors in support of this have much to gain if it passes. They are not serving the Nation's interests, but instead their own. 

This will go to a vote of the Tribal Council on May 16, 2016. It's your nation, Cherokees. Those councilors work for you. If you don't support this legislation, then let them know. Contact them and insist they vote no.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.








*Sources available upon request.


copyright 2016, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Sunday, May 1, 2016

Call to Action: Demand Your Tribal Councilor Vote No


The fight to stop the passage of the Election Law that will define "term" into "full term" and undermine our Constitution is not over. Now is the time to act. Please contact your council men/women and demand they vote no on the proposed term definition.

If you email them, keep a copy of the email. If you call them, write down the date and time of the call. If you get an answering machine, leave a message. If they don't return your call, make a notation of that, and then call them back the next day. Continue to try to reach them, making a notation of each attempt, until you do manage to get a response from them.

Each individual Cherokee holds power -- the power of their voice. Use your power and demand your voice be heard by the council person who serves YOU. They are supposed to carry your voice to the council table. Remind them that if they don't do that, they can be replaced with someone who will.

The Cherokee Nation belongs to the Cherokee people and our leaders serve us. If you are unhappy with this proposed law, then let your leaders know. Together we Cherokees can accomplish a lot through hard work and determination. Let's stop this definition of term. I can't promise it will be easy, but I can promise it will be worth it.
Click to Enlarge

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.






copyright 2016, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Defining "Term" - A "Little Trick" that was Predicted in 1999

Anyone who has been keeping up with the latest activities by the Cherokee Nation council is likely aware of their recent attempts to define term in our Election Law (and indirectly, our Cherokee Nation Constitution) to mean "full term." 

The new proposed definition:

click to enlarge
The Council is attempting to make this change under the Cherokee Nation Election section of our Constitution:

click to enlarge

As you can see, the Council is limited in their ability to enact law if it is inconsistent with the provisions of our Constitution.

"Term" is not defined in our Constitution in the Principal Chief or Council articles.

click to enlarge

click to enlarge
Notice the emphasis is on "consecutive elections" and "consecutive elected terms" instead of the length of term. There is a reason for that. The idea of "full term" was suggested during the 1999 Constitutional Convention by a "Mr. Bill Baker."

click to enlarge

The inclusion/exclusion of the words "full term" was debated. Mr. John Keen made a convincing point to the delegates at the Convention:

click to enlarge

A statement was made that the wording was important so the nation could avoid people pulling some "little trick":

click to enlarge

And a final decision was made to exclude "full term" from our Constitution:

click to enlarge

Fast forward to 2011. The Cherokee people had the opportunity to remove term limits for our elected officials. The Cherokee people voted TO KEEP term limits as they were in our Constitution. 

Today, in 2016, our Cherokee Nation Tribal Council, wants to add a definition under our election law that will in turn, undermine the intent (clearly spelled out in the words of the framers) of our Constitution, the highest law in the Cherokee Nation. It also undermines the faith of the Cherokee people by trying to find a way to get around the term limits set by our Constitution and upheld by a vote of the people.

Adding the words "full term" to our election law would allow some of our council members who have won two consecutive elections, but not served two "full terms", to run again. Some of those people are voting to support this definition of term. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why.

It would also allow the current chief to run in a third consecutive election because we had to have a second chief's election in 2011, therefore it slightly cut short the time Baker spent in office that term. This is EXACTLY what the framers of our Constitution were trying to protect us from. They had the foresight to know that someone would try to pull some trick to run additional terms and they worked to avoid it. 

Current Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, Bill John Baker, was a delegate at the 1999 Constitutional Convention. He was the only Bill Baker in attendance, therefore he was the one that suggested the wording, "full term". He knows it was rejected by the framers of the Constitution and why. 

Current Attorney General of the Cherokee Nation, Todd Hembree, was a delegate at this same convention, as was current Secretary of State, Chuck Hoskin, Jr. They should both be aware of the reason "full term" was rejected by the framers of our constitution and why.

Now I'm no lawyer and unlike some people, won't pretend to be. I don't think one needs to be a lawyer to understand that defining "term" to mean "full term" goes against what the framers of our Constitution intended because I can read their actual words to see their intent. They rejected the words "full term" and they explained their reasons for doing so.
Above all else, our leaders, whether they be the chief, the attorney general, the secretary of state, or a council member, should "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution of the Cherokee Nation, the highest law of our nation. They also should bow to the will of the people and never attempt to undermine what the people have voted to uphold. Currently, the council appears to be doing both. This is troubling to me and should be troubling to you, no matter the side your political loyalties sit. 

Our leadership should serve our interests, not their own. The framers of the Constitution explained why it was in the best interest of the people to not include the words "full term" in the Constitution and that should be enough reason for the council to also reject that definition of "term" in our election law. If they don't, then perhaps it's time we, the Cherokee people, see their approval of "full term" as something the framers of our Constitution had concern about - elected officials manipulating the words "full term" to avoid term limits set forth in the Cherokee Nation Constitution and to violate the good faith of the Cherokee people.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading. 






*The Constitutional Convention document where the discussion is found is Vol. 5 - 3/2/99.


copyright 2016, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB