Letters | Local governance

Local governance

Editor,

Good morning, relatives, respected elders, youth, etc.

I come before you today deeply honored and grateful. To those who voted for me, thank you. Thank you for believing in me and trusting me with your votes. I’m truly humbled by your support.

To those who didn’t, thank you for exercising your right to vote. I hope to earn your trust and your vote on Nov. 3, 2026.

Winning this primary election is only the beginning of our journey. I listened to and heard your voice.

Platform No. 1: Navajo Nation chapters be “certified” to secure outside funding and establish their own ordinances. Platform No. 2: Comprehensive land and water studies. Platform No. 3: (Local Governance) Changing Title 2.

Navajo Nation Government, Subchapter 2 102. Powers; Composition. A. The Navajo Nation Council shall be the governing body of the Navajo Nation and shall consist of 24 delegates. This 102(A) shall not be amended unless approved by majority vote of all registered voters in all precincts. (You will champion this change).

I am committed to making sure your voices are heard in the Navajo Nation Council Chamber. Together, we’ll strive to bring true Local Governance back to the chapters. We will take back what was taken from “We the People” without our consent. Together we will make “The People the Governing Body of the Great Navajo Nation.”

I promise to represent you all with honesty and dedication. Let’s stay united, focused, and committed to true progress. Thank you again for your trust.

Vote Norman L. Begay for Council delegate (Many Farms, Lukachukai, Round Rock, and Tsaile/Wheatfields/Black Rock communities) on Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026.

Norman L. Begay
Lukachukai, Ariz.

---

 

Constitution concerns

Editor,

The new Navajo Constitution needs more looking into because of created new regulatory body, “incorporated” federal law, and new constitutional rights crafted in the draft by ONGD. I am not an attorney, so I did some critical digging into how constitutional language affects our sovereignty, land use, and the risk of implicit waivers.

New regulatory bodies created not existed before are given new constitutional status, which is more powerful than statutory status is the “Regulatory Authority”/Economic Development Commission empowered as a centralized authority over business licensing, land-use approvals, investor rights agreements, compliance enforcement, and dispute resolution. This is a new constitutional-level regulator, not just a program office. Why this matters: a constitutionally empowered regulator can override grazing rights, chapter authority and traditional land-use patterns. It also becomes the gatekeeper for investor leases – creating a structural pathway for de facto alienation.

The draft holds a “Land Management Authority” with combined power over grazing regulation, land-use planning, leasing authority, environmental review, and rights-of-way approvals into a single body. This collapses the traditional checks and balances between grazing committees, chapters, the Resources and Development Committee and land boards. It centralizes land power in a way that is historically dangerous for tribal land bases.

The draft has a “Business Court” or “Economic Court Division” in several areas created as a specialized judicial body for investor disputes, contract enforcement, regulatory appeals, and lease interpretation. This body will create a business court as a judicial forum for investors to enforce rights. A judicial opportunity for expensive remedies. Someone loses money. This is one of the most serious structural waivers in the ONGD architecture.

The ONGD draft constitution “Incorporated Federal Law” in several ways that create sovereignty risks, e.g., intervention of federal interpretive authority (NEPA-like environmental review), federal judicial references points (federal land-use agendas), and federal supremacy in disputes (federal corporate governance and business compliance standards). This is a backdoor erosion of sovereignty.

Language of “Incorporating Federal Indian Leasing Statues” filtered as explicitly referenced in Indian Mineral Leasing Act, Indian Long-Term Leasing Act, and HEARTH Act provisions. What this does, when incorporating federal leasing law into the constitution elevates investor rights and federal oversight. This makes it harder for the nation to modify leases, terminate leases, prioritize grazing rights, and protect cultural sites. This strengthens investor expectations. We lose another structural waiver.

The draft opens opportunities to use “Incorporation of Federal Corporate Law Concepts” inside the nation. What will move in is: investment-backed expectations, due process for investors, and treated property-like rights in leases. These are not Navajo concepts. They are federal constitutional and corporate doctrines. Once these concepts are constitutionalized, investors can argue they have enforceable rights, entitled to compensation, and can sue for interference. This is a direct path to implicit waiver of rights.

These are constitutional rights that did not exist in the 1960 constitution. A recap: Investor Rights is the most dangerous because it creates enforceable claims against the nation. Even if the constitution says, “sovereign immunity is preserved,” the creation of enforceable investor rights is open and contradicts preservation of sovereignty immunity. Throughout the draft language it includes rights to access Navajo markets, right to work on Navajo land, right to regulatory clarity, and right to appeal decisions. These rights raise business interests above traditional land users.

To add a little more detail to the right to work on Navajo land goes under “Right to Economic Development” is framed as “right to utilize land for economic benefit” that can be used to override grazing rights, chapter authority, cultural land use, and traditional ecological knowledge is another justification for long-term leases. So, there are “property-like interests” in leases, subtle but dangerous when the constitution states “lease”. It creates lease “rights,” “entitlements,” and more “expectations.”

All of these create “implicit waivers” even though we say, “sovereign immunity if preserved.”

I’m still trying to let you think about putting the new Navajo Constitution aside. Voting no is not a real no vote. It’s just saying wait. Give us the time and we can work out a better one.

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.

---