Letters | Lawsuit response
Lawsuit response
Editor,
St. Michaels Association for Special Education is aware of the civil lawsuit that has been filed and of the recent media reports concerning allegations involving individuals who participated in our programs.
Because this matter is now the subject of ongoing litigation, and because it involves the privacy of vulnerable adults, SMASE will not discuss the specific allegations or the details of the case in the media.
For nearly five decades, SMASE has been dedicated to providing quality services and support to individuals with developmental disabilities. The safety, dignity, and well-being of the people we serve has always been, and continues to be, our highest priority.
Whenever allegations affecting the health or safety of our members are brought to our attention, SMASE follows applicable reporting requirements and cooperates with the appropriate authorities and regulatory agencies. We are committed to complying with our legal obligations and maintaining a safe environment for those entrusted to our care.
We recognize that allegations of this nature are deeply concerning to our members, their families, our employees and the community. At the same time, it is important to remember that a civil complaint contains allegations that have not yet been decided by the court. SMASE intends to respond through the legal process and present the relevant facts in the appropriate forum.
Out of respect for the judicial process and the privacy of those involved, we will not be making additional comments regarding the pending litigation at this time.
Kimber Crowe
Executive director
St. Michaels Association for Special Education
St. Michaels, Ariz.
Campaign cleanup
Editor,
Navajo Nation Primary Election was Tuesday. Thanks to all who applied. If you won, Congratulations! We will see your names in November.
If you did not, continue to work with our Nation, chapters, businesses, communities and homes a better place. Defeat is but a lesson to learn from. Adapt, improvise and overcome.
To all, please remove your campaign signs. High winds will tear them off. Don’t cause more litter.
Eugene Begay
Tonalea, Ariz.
Rate burden
Editor,
Have you ever thought about how electricity, running water and wastewater work? Without thinking twice, consumers turn on and off the lights and water.
In response to the article “NTUA approves sharp water, wastewater rate hikes” in the Navajo Times, dated July 2, 2026, I think the appearance of water in the San Juan River flowing by freely.
The river has been in our region for centuries, just flowing and flowing. Then settlements occurred and people started to make changes to the river. Now here we are in the 21st century and we must pay higher prices so that we can use water for everything. The operations of providing water and wastewater are reported as needing more funding to stay operational. The simple has gone intricate, the new is in and the old is outdated and obsolete.
According to the article, the present system of providing water to homes on the Navajo Nation is wearing out and needs replacement involving price increases and residents’ budgets.
The elderly and fixed income residents are the ones most affected by these sharp water and wastewater rate hikes. As it is, when annual social security payments are slightly increased for the cost of living, the rent for many elderly and fixed income people goes up. Now with these rate increases for water and wastewater usage, the people’s budget for putting food on the table becomes less. Claiming that $324 million in American Rescue Plan Act cannot cover the cost of running “plants, wells, waterline extensions, etc.,” NTUA turned to the small budgets of Navajo Nation residents.
It is further stated that existing NTUA water and wastewater infrastructure needs upgrade. NTUA is a Navajo Nation enterprise and a monopoly for utilities, not an independent organization and still gets funding from the tribal government. NTUA does have to resort to individuals’ pocketbooks and give the residents no choice from whom to buy services from. There were several questions and concerns raised from residents in different chapters about the usage and allocations of existing funding sources without any viable answers.
Wilford R. Joe
Shiprock, N.M.
Economic disconnect
Editor,
As voters, we expect those running for office to give us more than cultural anecdotes or circular reasoning, absent of any proof or evidence as much as the oversimplified conclusions they argue. The point of this letter is the topic of the economics of our Navajo economy.
And voters need to look no further than the presidential forum on the Navajo Economy, as it fully displayed the unfamiliarity of the candidates of the simple study of economics. That being the case, the profession of economics in general, studies the Socratic question, “How should one live?”
That question is very important to our Navajo people. Year after year we are losing our children and education to pursue opportunities off the reservation. We have a government that relies on government subsidies and government jobs and praises itself for creating jobs. And yet, while their diatribe from the perspective of cultural teaching argues against the laziness of handouts, they rather rely on government grants to address our people’s needs.
For example, the supposed $34 million increase in current tax revenue didn’t happen because there were increased business activities or opportunities. The increase happened because the Navajo Nation received a $3 billion infusion of ARPA and CARES Act funding and any rational individual would expect tax revenues to increase as a result.
And after 2027, those funds will be exhausted and there will be no more additional tax revenues for the tribal government to rely on.
A second major presidential debate fallacy is candidates encapsulating the problem of the lack of economic development on the Navajo Nation to the Business Opportunity Act and the Navajo Employment Act. This argument says, you fix the two laws, and the economic problems will be solved, all with their single “magic-bullet” theory.
What that argument diminishes are the countless other Navajo laws related to economic development that have come to fore from previous Navajo leadership. One can’t dismiss the wisdom and totality – catalogued together, as to what I call our standing Navajo economic policy.
Yet, the candidates choose to either not acknowledge them, are unfamiliar with them, or only choose what suits their politics.
In economics, there are principles such as government crowd-out, comparative advantage, tradeoffs, opportunity cost, scarcity, pareto optimality, consumer satiation, rational behavior, marginal propensity, government-induced macro-economic policies, or the basic supply and demand, to name but a few. A far greater topic than what the candidates are presenting.
In traditional economics study, religion, economics and politics are studied together, studied together to formulate policies. On the other hand, our candidates argue either only from religion (cultural anecdotes) and/or politics (magic-bullet theory) and never attempt to understand that the topic of economics is greater than a few laws and cultural teaching, or much less how the three are inter-related for the advancement of our Navajo communities.
Without a full grasp of our economics on the Navajo Nation, we will continue to lose our children to off-reservation opportunities and hence begin to lose our language, culture, and land (religion). Moreover, we will diminish our governance (politics) over our affairs as external governments will no longer view us as a political force.
And if we chose to not grasp our familiarity of our economics on the Navajo Nation, then our politics’ arguments of cultural anecdotes (religion) and to fix the one law theory (politics), then we will have lost how we have discourse of preserving our Navajo Nation for the future.
In conclusion, to us, the rational economic agent (and voter) that live with the outcome of failed political arguments, we can only hope and ask of the remaining candidates what besides their traditional anecdotes, one magic-bullet (NBOA) theory or their disdain for the natural laws of economics do they have for us to give us hope for our future?
After all, we have waited far too long and have voted far too many times with nothing to show for.
Raymond K. Nopah
Gallup, N.M.
Constitutional concerns
Editor,
To set the groundwork stage for history buffs to set the seriousness and reasons why the new Navajo constitution should not be approved, tribal nations fought for “inherent sovereignty” in the Worcester v. Georgia (1832) case and not something granted. Even though the Supreme Court ruled Indigenous governance predates the U.S., that should not be a comfort zone to be kept in mind when reading the new Navajo constitution – that tribes are “distinct political communities.”
This is the ruling bedrock of federal Indian law and the starting point for every modern sovereignty doctrine, which President Andrew Jackson, at the time refused to enforce, leading directly to Indian Removal (1830), and the infamous “Trail of Tears.” From historical events as such, this new Navajo constitution should be a legal tool that protects us, not written to be used by the federal government to rule against us in court. It would be a critical and grave mistake to vote in favor of a questionable written document, I and many who do not support.
This commentary is to bring some contemporary issues about the new constitution to light and for unknown political reasons, it is being rushed through the referendum vote this coming general election, Nov. 3, 2026. Ironically, it takes longer to get a Homesite Lease approval. Democracy requires informed consent, not rushed structural changes. What type of new Navajo constitution will we be accepting?
The title is meaningful (Nihookáá Diyin Din’é Ninaach’id Nahat’á Nááhil’naahiil’naah Dóó Bindii’a’ ĺishjáni Ánálnálnééh) found on the website. It calls for Nahat’á to use the Holy Ones’ guidance for restoring harmony and renewing life on Mother Earth. The wording sounds like a total replacement of Navajo government, one we can call our own, to protect what we are blessed with, the system of k’é with the natural world as a living entity. This should be not just a different government structure, a different way of being, it moves from compliance to relationship, from control to care, from federal contractor to sovereign partners, but something does not feel right. It sounds beautiful but misleading for precise legal language. When the federal government interprets it will say, “We are legible to what you write,” not a federal phrase but comes from Navajo legal experts warning the public.
This is a warning rooted in federal Indian law whenever Navajo attorneys are fighting for our rights in federal court. It means the Navajo Nation writes whatever into a constitution text and adopts it so it becomes visible, readable, interpreted and enforced by federal courts, federal agencies, and outside interest groups, even if the Navajo Nation intends to be “sovereign” or culturally grounded.
In reality, federal courts and federal agencies can read, once written, it becomes part of the legal landscape federal actors use to decide jurisdiction, authority, and limits of tribal power. Federal judges will use the written constitution to decide jurisdiction, civil rights, separation of powers, federal-tribal conflicts, funding compliance and land trust issues. This is because tribal constitutions – even sovereign ones – are treated as legal instruments within the federal system.
The Office of Navajo Government Development’s proposal is a 113-page “Supreme Law” in the new Navajo constitution intended for a single referendum passage. It would replace major portions of Navajo Nation law and restructuring governance. This new constitution is not in force yet but in a final draft document since the Reform Project started last July 15, 2025. Supposedly it was written with Diné input from every chapter is hard to believe when put on a fast-track under two ideological different value systems. There is no real protection but a template of the U.S. Constitution to appease the federal and “The People” to approve and say, “This is ours!”
Here is where it misleads “The People” who do not have their full input. “The People” are not part of the plan when they have enormous concerns. Our tribal government and many chapters have done their own surveys with resolution of non-support. ONGD ought to have consulted the CLUPCs from every chapter level who handle planning and familial units. But this did not happen.
What is the rush? Outside interests? When done in haste, we are allowing for unpardonable mistakes. It took the U.S. Constitution from draft to ratification 34 years. Again, to state, many of us do not support the referendum.
Former Chief Herb Yazzie, judicial experts and political leaders warn that the ONGD is trying to bypass the required legislative review process and place the proposal directly on the ballot without proper chapter hearings. Only few locations were selected to hold public forums to pass as chapter hearings. The three-branch review is being bypassed. Chapters have not been fully briefed, only 48 out of 113-page of the drafted new constitution pages were made public. The certified Local Governance Act chapters has been “superseded” without chapter consent, freezes amendments for 20 years, created an Office of Government Review (Fourth Branch) with power to strike down non-confirming laws, replace Title 1, Title 2, Title 3, Title 26, and will rewrite the Navajo Fundamental Law.
Federal courts do not treat tribal constitutions as “internal-only.” They use them to determine: Who has authority (tribal president, council, courts, or the Fourth Branch); whether due process was followed.
Retired Chief Justice Herb Yazzie, Daniel Tso, and others have emphasized that the ONGD drafts contain language that may unintentionally weaken separation of powers, create federal vulnerabilities, conflict with Diné Fundamental Law, and invite federal intervention when disputes arise.
The “Call to Chapters” letter (Feb. 5, 2026), authored by retired judiciary and legislative figures, urges chapters to scrutinize the proposal carefully, warning that it would freeze constitutional amendments for 20 years and centralize authority in ways inconsistent with Navajo governance traditions. There is broad concern with many officials and chapters warning that the proposal removes legislative authority, restructures elections, and threatens local governance. Across all three branches, the dominant themes are procedural objections, sovereignty concerns, cultural and legal misalignment, and community-level resistance.
Once voters approve the new constitution, the federal government will treat it as the nation’s supreme law of Diné Bikéyah. If voters reject it, the current Navajo Nation Code and Fundamental Law remain the governing framework. This is not electioneering, just a factual explanation.
Another reason why President Buu Nygren has already filed action to block power-shifting resolutions found in the new constitution, arguing they “strip authority from the Executive Branch, erode checks and balances, and undermines the (collective) will of the People.”
Members of both the Navajo Nation Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch have mixed public comments on the proposed new Navajo constitution. Their statements are not unified. Instead, they reflect significant concerns, procedural objections, and warnings about long-term impacts on sovereignty and governance.
The document uses Navajo language to reference “values” is structured unmistakably Western. Navajo terms are used symbolically, not structural words like hózhó, k’é, or Diné values but appear in preamble aspirational selected sections. This is the hallmark written to sound culturally grounded but does not shape the operating legal mechanisms, just ornaments. This signals to federal court whatever do you mean as mentioned before: The new constitution avoids asserting power that Congress dislikes. There is no strong assertion of inherent treaty-based sovereignty, no jurisdiction over non-Navajos, no exclusive control over land and resources, and constitutional authority not subject to oversight by an unelected Fourth Branch.
The proposal includes privatization and corporate prioritization over community needs, a Fourth Branch of government, and blood quantum set at one-fourth still appear in the new constitution. The proposal includes an Investor Bill of Rights giving corporations priority access to infrastructure. This would allow non-Navajos to buy trust land and local governance entities to provide services without funding. This shift powers away from Navajo families and chapters toward corporate interests and centralized authority. Democracy weakens when economic power is concentrated in central government and local communities lose control. Corporations go directly to Window Rock to work out business deals without direct involvement of local chapters where the mineral resources are found under their land. And replacing Diné Fundamental Law without consulting our “knowledge keepers” of traditional values that have gotten us this far. The proposal claims to be the “collective will” of Diné is not there.
So, when the Navajo Nation writes a constitution, federal courts gain a window into Navajo governance, gain a rulebook for interpreting Navajo authority, and Congress gains a reference for jurisdiction boundaries. This is the meaning of “legibility.”
Do we dare to be different that we are a “distinct political community” with our own constitution?
Teddy Begay
Kayenta, Ariz.
Get instant access to this story by purchasing one of our many e-edition subscriptions HERE at our Navajo Times Store.
Highway 264,
I-40, WB @ Winslow