Guest Column | ‘What good is my name if I can’t stand up for Navajo voter’s rights’

By Leonard Tsosie
Special to the Times

I introduced legislation requesting of the Navajo Nation Council to remove Herb Yazzie as the Chief Justice of the Navajo Nation, because he has created quite a stir not on the merits, but in the form of character assassination and cynicism.

The legislation is quite simple and is about accountability. I am not the only one raising these points. Speaker Bates and President Shelly, as the head of their respective branch of Navajo government, jointly issued a press release on March 31. In addition, over 70 Navajo Chapters have passed Resolutions requesting the removal of Chief Justice. Not surprisingly, the people who are working against this are supporters or operatives of the two campaigns: Joe Shirley, Jr., and Russell Begaye campaigns.

Mr. Percy Deal of Hardrock, Ariz., in particular, has said that I am taking the Navajo Nation back to the days of the 1989 government turmoil and that I am doing this legislation because the rulings were against me. Mr. Deal is promoting his message based on lies, deception, misrepresentation and self-interest.

I am a legislator and my job is to work with Navajo constituency to promote solutions to their concerns. I did not take the President’s veto as a ruling against me. He vetoed saying that he would like to see the Navajo People vote on this important question. That is what the current referendum vote is about.

There was one ruling about invalidation by the Navajo Supreme Court, but that judgment is the basis of the allegations that Chief Justice has violated certain laws of the Navajo Nation and is causing Navajo employees to violate Navajo laws by ordering the Controller to sweep $317,000 together and give it to the election office. I think we all agree that Courts cannot do any appropriations of tribal funds. Mr. Deal is wrong to say that the last resolution I amended to provide for a referendum was a ruling against me because that resolution was never invalidatedÑthe referendum vote will happen, it’s just a matter of when. Mr. Deal misleads the listeners in saying that this is akin to corruption while that is not the case. Today’s reason for the election crisis is voting disenfrancshisement and not corruption; and it is improper to compare the two to be the same.

Interestingly, Mr. Deal admits being part of the Council in 1989 that created Title II/Election amendments. In 1989, he voted to push Navajo youth away from the leadership table by passing the “fluency” law without thinking about the consequences to our youth. He did not even vet the law to make sure that the “fluency” law had some form of a test and that it not be discriminatory against our youth. His failings as a member of the 1989 Council has now come back to haunt the Navajo Nation governmentÑwe’re now having to amend laws to correct his omissions. Mr. Deal does not let the people know that he has been part of an environmental activist group that challenged Mr. Deschene and has been supporting a current presidential candidate. That is his self-interest.

Mr. Deal appears to think that his wizardry and artful use Navajo words can make it sound like I am trying to bring back the riots of 1989 and that he will slip this argument pass the Navajo people. I have not seen one iota of evidence that Navajo People are rioting. Instead, they are marching to the Council Chamber to air their concerns and grievances about their votes being thrown out and about the hypocrisy that Navajo students were asked to get an education to help their people and only to be shunned later. They are only insisting upon the protection of their rights.

For myself, I have been open about this. I have asked to sit down or have a meeting to “talk things out” with the Chief Justice, Joe Shirley campaign, Russell Begaye campaign, and even Mr. Deal, but to no avail.

I know former President Shirley realizes the value of vote of Navajo people because he spearheaded the initiative in 2009. So, how is this latest referendum vote any different as for him to not support it? He has not been too leader-like by not telling his followers to let the Navajo pPeople vote on the referendum and to honor the vote (nor has former Delegate Russell Begaye). If the Navajo People vote “yes” on the referendum, they will change the law on fluency. If they vote “no,” I will accept that, move on and support the funding of the presidential election between Mr. Shirley and Mr. Begaye.

The attempt to address disenfranchisement of Navajo people’s votes should not be compared to the 1989 turmoil, nor be used as an excuse to plant ideas about riots nor is it a feeble attempt or is frivolous. These votes should not be easily cast aside.

I have accepted the forgiveness by the Navajo people of the leaders involve in the 1989 turmoil and do not use that dark part of Navajo history to cause hysteria. Today, its about holding the judiciary branch accountable.

Finally, I have been informed that the Navajo Election Administration does not have the funds to conduct the April 21 presidential election. It was irresponsible for Mr. Edison Wauneka, as the director, to knowingly set an election date out of fear of the Supreme Court in the absence of funds to conduct the election. As a result, April 21st election will be chaotic and not done to get a meaningful vote of the Navajo People.

I have never encouraged the use of force or riots as an answer to voting disenfranchisement. Even though it has been twisted by many, my intent is simple: Let the Navajo People vote first on the referendum as a form of remedy for voting disenfranchisement; and then, let that vote be our guide to resolving our election crisis. To those who wish to malign my name, I can only say “What good is my name or character, if I can’t even stand up for Navajo voting rights?”

---