Where persuasion failed, the Council takes aim

The Navajo Nation Council faced setbacks on multiple fronts in 2010, and reacted to them with numerous initiatives aimed at those it held responsible.

The targets included the judicial branch, with special attention to the Navajo Nation Supreme Court, and three top officials in the executive branch - Attorney General Louis Denetsosie, Deputy Attorney General Harrison Tsosie and Controller Mark Grant.

All three Supreme Court justices were targeted for removal, and the judicial branch itself was the subject of a proposed revamp that, had it succeeded, would have turned the Navajo Nation's respected court system into something resembling that of, say, Texas.

The depth of the Council's feeling about the courts, where it had suffered one defeat after another in the battle over reducing from 88 to 24 members, began to emerge in late summer, with talk of making the judges and justices elective.

Then came a Sept. 23 memo describing a resolution on judicial reform as "legislation to get rid of Chief Justice Herb Yazzie." The author was Delegate Lorenzo Curley (Houck/Lupton/Nahata Dziil).

Curley is one of just two lawyers on the Council, but he is not on the Judiciary Committee, where such legislation would normally originate. And for reasons that he never discussed publicly, Curley was turning over sponsorship of the bill to another delegate.

The revamp was drafted without any input from the judicial branch, which quickly issued a press release listing all the ways it would weaken the Navajo courts.

Former Associate Justice Ray Austin, among others, also spoke out against both the referendum and the legislative bill, noting that making the bench subject to election would politicize it, as is the case in Texas. And the proposed legislative changes, he said, would undermine a system that is known nationwide for its impartiality, competence, and dedication to fairness.

On Nov. 9, the Judiciary Committee approved amending its hearing rules to recommend the removal of permanent justices and judges. Attached to the legislation was a memorandum marked "confidential" that said the reason for amending the rules was to remove Chief Justice Yazzie.

As the year closes, there has been no Council resolution drafted that focuses on removing Yazzie.

But the Council pursued its interest in judicial reform by canning both associate justices, who had not yet been confirmed in permanent appointments.

The Supreme Court, meanwhile, declared the judge referendum invalid and ordered the election office not to count the votes on it after Election Day.

More recently, however, the delegates turned their guns on Attorney General Louis Denetsosie and Deputy Attorney General D. Harrison Tsosie, whose term in office ends Jan. 11.

The Council reacted when Associate Attorney General Henry Howe said he could not brief them on the activities of the special prosecutor in open session, and would have to exclude those who had been charged with criminal conduct by the special prosecutor. That means all but 11 delegates would be excluded.

The delegates spoke openly of firing Howe and Controller Mark Grant, who was waiting to report on how much money remained in the special prosecutor's account.

But after considering further, they developed resolutions to remove Denetsosie and Tsosie. The bills were on the agenda of the Dec. 23 special session, but neither was accompanied by documentation explaining why the Council felt the two officials were not up to scratch.

Delegates debated for almost an hour about removing Tsosie but the measure failed by a landslide, 3 in favor and 65 against. Following that, the bill to remove Denetsosie died for lack of a motion.

NEXT, No. 4: Many firsts in primary, general elections

Back to top ^