Shirley: Law limits voters' right to choose leader

President Joe Shirley Jr. is standing by his assertion that the Navajo election law violates his civil rights by not allowing him to run for a third term, according to a legal brief filed July 2 by his attorney, David Jordan of Gallup.

In the 22-page brief, filed in Navajo Nation Supreme Court, Shirley invokes previous rulings by the high court that supported his efforts. Particularly, the brief points out that the court agreed with Shirley that his position, that of the president, belongs to the people.

"Shirley petitions this court to recognize this right of the people by eliminating the artificial term limits imposed only upon the Office of the President," the brief states.

Shirley asks the court to restore "the right of the people to elect to that office the candidate of their choice."

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case Friday, July 9, at 10 a.m. in the Navajo Nation Museum auditorium.

Shirley argued before hearing officer Keith Smith that the term limit is placed on only the president and no other elected position within the Navajo Nation. This violates Shirley's civil rights, according to his argument.

However, Smith ruled against him, stating that Shirley had the same opportunities to run and serve two consecutive terms as any other citizen. Also, Smith stated that the president holds more concentrated power than other governmental branches, creating a need to limit any one individual's access to so much power.

Still, Shirley is standing by his argument before the high court.

"It cannot be disputed that Shirley's right to run is a crucial liberty interest that is protected by the Navajo Bill of Rights," his brief states.

Although Shirley's brief does recognize that the council created the election code, including the term limit, following the 1989 governmental crisis involving longtime chairman Peter MacDonald Sr. However, this "was a reaction to abuses alleged to have been committed by one specific person," Shirley argues.

He dismisses the claim that presidential term limits keep a concentration of power from occurring. Instead, the statute shifts the advantage to the legislative branch, he argues.

"The statute actually ensures the concentration of power by permitting the council, and only the council, to accumulate power by multiple terms," Shirley states.

Shirley also invokes Diné Fundamental Law, a traditional form of law in the tribal code that stresses public participation in government. Under this traditional law, the people should not be denied the right to elect the leader of their choosing, Shirley said.

In his ruling, Smith stated that the term limits were the will of the people. And though he did not disagree with Shirley, he said additional action is needed. If the people don't want term limits, they must act to remove them.

In his brief before the Supreme Court, Shirley states that the council itself recognized that term limits were invalid when it codified Fundamental Law in 2002.

"The very first 'right and freedom' recognized by the council was the right and freedom to 'choose leaders of their choice,'" the brief states. "Term limits is an express abrogation of the people's right to choose a candidate."

Shirley also argues that Fundamental Law is an older law, and one that is intended to be a "higher law." Therefore, it should take precedence over council-approved statutes.

Back to top ^