Letters | Sovereignty first
Sovereignty first
Editor,
Equally troubling is the growing influence of state officials who have little connection to Navajo communities. Some come from places like Florida or Boston, now holding positions of authority in New Mexico, yet rarely, if ever, visit Navajo land or meet with Navajo leadership. Their decisions show a limited understanding of tribal sovereignty and an even weaker appreciation for the economic challenges facing Navajo families. Too often, their loyalty appears to lie with party agendas rather than the people most affected by their policies.
This is not the first time state legislators have targeted Navajo sovereignty or attempted to reshape decision-making on Navajo land. We saw it recently in proposals that would have given other tribes a direct say over Navajo lands in and around Chaco Canyon. SB 18 was simply the latest attempt to impose outside priorities on the Navajo Nation without consultation or respect.
Fortunately, this time the effort failed. Senators Pinto, Shendo, and Muñoz deserve recognition for voting against SB 18 and standing with the Navajo people. Navajo Nation leadership also acted decisively, and advocacy groups like the Four Corners Clean Energy Alliance played a critical role in alerting officials and mobilizing opposition.
The lesson is clear: vigilance is not optional. The Navajo Nation must continue asserting its voice, defending its sovereignty and protecting its economic future. SB 18 may be gone, but the pressures behind it are not. The Navajo people deserve leaders – tribal and state – who will put their interests first, every time.
Samuel Begay Sr.
Shiprock, N.M.
Quorum matters
Editor,
In the Navajo Times article titled, “Nygren faces five hours of Council scrutiny as ARPA deadlines near,” Donovan Quintero informs readers that The American Rescue Plan Act funds were intended to help families and communities during the 2021 pandemic, which $8 million is unaccounted for and $33.6 million is unspent.
Donovan Quintero also discusses a few different pressure points the delegates pointed out during the five hours of scrutiny. Those include the closure of the Ganado Moras, the Ganado Post Office, homes or trailers without water or electricity and veterans being denied hardship assistance, even after receiving ARPA-funded service.
I agree with Delegate Shawna Claw when she said, “I noticed that many chapters are having a hard time getting a quorum, your presence and participation is needed.”
From my experience, the chapter houses make improvements, according to the votes from the community. This can only happen after reaching quorum, but you need a certain amount of community participants to meet quorum. If chapters don’t meet quorum, communities can’t vote and meetings are postponed. If meetings are postponed continuously, the critical struggles such as hardship assistance, housing delivery gaps and financial transparency will become worse, even after the deadlines.
This is the struggle all chapter houses are going through because our senior relatives are the only participants in chapter meetings. Although some of the younger generation participate these days, it is becoming harder to meet quorum each day because every senior is getting older and closer to crossing over.
I cannot persuade everyone in my generation to participate in their chapter meetings, but once our parents and grandparents cross over, those who thought chapter meetings were boring will understand the big changes we could have made, if we just show up and vote with our communities.
The younger generations know how to post on social media and make flyers or posters so we can put those skills to an advantage and spread notice about chapter meetings. We can also have announcements in schools. However, this can’t be done by one person. Everyone has peers and every single participant makes a difference.
Jannie Scott
Tonalea, Ariz.
No border liquor
Editor,
A recent article in the Navajo Times by Donovan Quintero titled, “Navajo chapters mobilize against border packaged liquor license,” talks about a Mobil gas station and hotel near the Navajo Nation in Chambers, Arizona, which they requested for a liquor license to sell packaged liquor. This raised concerns among many Navajo chapter officials and community members.
Alcohol has caused problems in the past, including car accidents, family issues and disputes. Navajo community members worry that selling liquor near the Diné Nation could bring back these problems and make it harder for families to stay safe.
I understand how people think of selling liquor as a business choice. However, I strongly disagree with the request for a liquor license because it will harm the community more than it will help it. Even though the store is off the reservation, I’m concerned about the effects it will have on Navajo families who live nearby.
Michael Hallwell states, “We know it’s off the reservation … we know it’s going to come this way.” Selling alcohol close to the reservation will increase risks and cause drunk driving, violence and serious health problems among the Navajo people. Many families have already faced trauma, broken bones, addictions and other tragedies caused by alcohol abuse. Navajo tribal leaders should fight this license to protect the Diné community and future generations.
In conclusion, Navajo leaders have a responsibility to keep their community safe. Making money from selling liquor should never come before the well-being of families, especially children. Denying this liquor license and working with state officials to strengthen rules will help prevent problems before they reach Navajo families. Supporting programs that educate and help families will make the community stronger.
By combining rules with positive community programs, leaders can help the community grow and future generations can live in a healthier, safer environment. Keeping families safe must always be the main priority.
Tineesha Todechine
Chinle, Ariz.
Detox needed
Editor,
In the article “Navajo Chapter mobilizes against border packaged liquor license” by Donovan Quintero, residents and chapter officials expressed concerns that a Series 9 liquor license would harm communities already affected by alcohol-related issues. They recall previous convenience stores that sold liquor, which led to people passing out along roads, fighting, neglecting children and even deadly accidents. Because the proposed store would be near the I-40 interchange between Chambers and Sanders, residents warn it could increase drunk driving.
Council Delegate Arbin Mitchell has instructed chapters in his district to draft resolutions opposing the license. Opponents are gathering petitions, preparing testimony, and may appear before the Arizona State Liquor Board, where a similar license was denied after community concerns were raised.
While the community’s concerns about alcohol access are valid, focusing only on opposing the license overlooks a deeper problem: the lack of services for those struggling with addiction. Many Navajo communities have limited access to treatment centers, mental health care and recovery programs. For example, Michael Halliwell, a Wide Ruins Chapter community services coordinator, emphasizes this challenge when he states, “We already have that disadvantage of not having any detox centers.”
Halliwell’s observation highlights how the absence of accessible treatment leaves residents vulnerable to cycles of alcoholism and addiction. Without recovery programs, youth are especially at risk of falling into the same pattern. The energy devoted to opposing the license shows strong community commitment, but that effort could also be directed toward advocating for long-term solutions. Establishing detox centers, culturally grounded recovery programs and structured youth initiatives would address the root causes of addiction while protecting families and promoting the well-being of the Navajo Nation.
The organization and determination shown in opposing the liquor license proves that the community is capable of meaningful change. Rather than limiting efforts to resisting a single license, residents and chapter officials could use that momentum to influence Navajo Nation leaders to strengthen alcohol-related laws and secure funding for recovery and prevention programs.
By drafting formal proposals and presenting them at chapter meetings, the community could prioritize detox centers, rehabilitation facilities and youth development initiatives. Redirecting collective energy toward legislative reform and supportive infrastructure would reduce alcohol-related harm and provide Navajo families and youth with lasting opportunities to build healthier futures.
Dylan Begay
Lukachukai, Ariz.
Close the loophole
Editor,
In the Navajo Times article titled, “Navajo chapters mobilize against border package liquor license,” by Donovan Quintero, he explains a convenience store and gas station near the Navajo Nation border wants permission to sell packaged liquor. Community members argue not allowing the store to sell alcohol because of alcohol abuse. For example, a community member named Marcia Parker explained her story about using liquor leads to serious problems for Navajo communities, including deaths, drunk drivers, violence, family trauma, neglect of children and increased pressure by law enforcement.
By focusing on the packaged liquor license, a Mobil station near the Navajo Nation border wants to sell packaged liquor, which overlooks a deeper problem, of making a dangerous decision whether the location allows alcohol sales, legal requirements, and background check.
I personally think that a community member named Mitchell has a point about warning the chapter houses in the area to oppose the application reopens old wounds in communities that have spent generations trying to heal from the harmful effects of liquor sales. For years, many residents feel that alcohol has a target to their primary customs base.
In order to maintain liquor licenses, the state would had repeatedly renewed them far longer than the policy allows. The licenses should have been renewed for 10 years and now going on 11 years. Liquor licenses are based on county population numbers, which includes the members in the Navajo community. It concerns about fairness since the population cannot legally purchase alcohol while it’s still being counted to justify additional licenses in the county.
What I disagree is the sale of liquor near the border for several reasons. Sales occur outside the reservation, which will affect the Navajo community, and border stores will attract tribal members to where it can increase alcohol-related problems in the community.
For the state to change is to strictly enforce a renewal so that licenses cannot be extended.
Stacie Davis
Window Rock, Ariz.
Protect our jobs
Editor,
SB18 was a wake-up call for the Navajo Nation. Now it must stay vigilant in protecting its interest. New Mexico’s SB 18 came dangerously close to passing this legislative session.
On paper, it was framed as an environmental reform bill. In reality, it would have imposed sweeping new regulatory burdens on businesses across the state, including those operating on Navajo land or partnering with Navajo-owned companies. The consequences would have been immediate and severe for the Navajo Nation’s economy, workforce and schools.
For a nation already working to strengthen its business environment, SB 18 represented a direct threat. The bill’s stricter requirements were not crafted with tribal realities in mind. They did not account for the fragile economic ecosystem on Navajo land, nor the thousands of Navajo allottees, enterprises, and workers who rely on steady, predictable business conditions. Had SB 18 passed, many Navajo projects, especially energy projects, would have ground to a halt. Navajo schools, which depend on revenue generated through business activity, would have felt the impact almost overnight.
What stopped this harmful legislation was not luck, it was leadership. Navajo Nation officials, the president’s office and Navajo Nation Council, alongside many New Mexico businesses, stepped forward to oppose SB 18 and make clear what was at stake. Their action is a reminder of why tribal leadership must always speak up, assert sovereignty, and defend Navajo economic interests. Environmental stewardship matters, but so does the livelihood of Navajo families today. With so many Navajos leaving the Nation protecting jobs, revenue, and opportunity must remain a top priority.
But SB 18 also forces us to ask a harder question: where do our Navajo state legislators stand?
If they supported this bill, why did they not propose alternatives or safeguards for the Navajo Nation? Why was there no plan to protect the 20,000 Navajo allottees who would have been directly harmed?
Why were tribal enterprises and businesses left out of the conversation? Why did they not look to protect tribal education who would have felt it first?
Samuel Begay Sr.
Shiprock, N.M.
Get instant access to one of our many e-edition subscriptions HERE at our Navajo Times Store.
Highway 264,
I-40, WB @ Winslow