Election chief: Logistics an obstacle to quick reform vote

The Navajo Nation's top election official has serious concerns about whether his office can meet deadlines set by the Navajo Nation Supreme Court to hold an election to let voters decide two government reform proposals.

The questions are whether to reduce the tribal council from the present 88 members to 24, and whether to expand the tribal president's ability to cut parts of council spending bills (line-item veto).

"If we did this, it would not be fair to the Navajo people," said Edison Wauneka, director of the Navajo Election Administration.

Wauneka, who was a major supporter of the idea to reduce the council when he ran for council and president in the 1990s, said his main concern right now is that the July 30 ruling and its deadlines force the tribe to rush too much.

The NEA has requested the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling (see separate story). The election office, which is part of the legislative branch, wants to be allowed to come up with a timeline that will carry out the Supreme Court's ruling in a timely and organized manner, Wauneka said.

While tribal members have been talking for years about reducing the council and there have been public hearings and even a vote on the issue in 2002, a lot of voters probably still don't understand what effect a reduction would have on the chapter system of government, he said.

It's evident that a lot of voters would like to see an election held right away, Wauneka said. And while he might personally like to see the election held right away, Wauneka said his duties as election director require him to speak out in defense of doing it right.

If this means a delay in the long run, he said, the tribe will be better for it.

Wauneka said he also finds himself in a precarious situation, legally obligated to follow the Supreme Court ruling on one hand but required to follow other laws that have been enacted by the council that require him to do the election in a certain way.

Preparation and dissemination of voter education materials is one such responsibility. He said many Navajo voters probably think the current system needs to be changed because council delegates are spending too much money and not addressing the needs of the people.

A smaller council, with members who are more active and maybe more educated, would be better able to address the issues, the reasoning goes.

But a smaller council could have a major adverse affect on the chapters, said Wauneka, echoing the position many council delegates hold.

When public hearings were held on the matter several years ago, a lot of chapter members indicated they wanted to either keep the council at its present size or, in a few cases, increase it to 110 so each chapter could have its own council delegate.

These people felt chapters were at a disadvantage when they were grouped together and represented by at-large delegates, as would be required for most chapters if the council were reduced to 24 seats.

People in at-large district complain that the bigger chapters dominate the smaller ones, and elect an at-large representative who just looks after the interests of his or her home chapter.

With 24 members, Wauneka said, all but a handful of the most populous chapters would be grouped in at-large districts.

He also predicted that people's position on council reduction will probably break down as follows: politically active chapter members will vote to keep things as they are, while less involved chapter residents and those living off the reservation likely will favor a smaller council.

Wauneka said the number of Navajos who actively attend chapter meetings is declining and today probably amounts to between 10 and 15 percent of the 130,000 Navajos who live on the reservation.

Wauneka said it was evident from the public hearings that were held and the referendum that was held four years ago that a sizable faction of the voting population wants to see the council reduced. They believe it will make the government more efficient and may, in the long run, make the council thriftier.

A number of people supportive of the reduction have said having a smaller council means things will get done lot faster. When you have 88 different voices, things tend to drag out while sponsors try to build a consensus.

A smaller council might allow for decision making to be done quickly and without a lot of the politics that kill many proposals.

Wauneka said the voter education process could take several months in order to be effective.

Then there's the question of money.

At this point, he said, the election office doesn't have the funds to hold an election or to promote it.

He estimated that the office would need $294,000 to pay for the election itself, including hired poll officials, and another $100,000 for voter education.

He stressed that the election office, despite its affiliation with the legislative branch, must be unbiased when it comes to educating the public and would only be able to point out the pros and cons of each side. It would be up to the advocates on both sides to pay for any ads trying to persuade voters.

This brings up the question of whether the tribal council, which has opposed the election, would try to delay it by refusing to appropriate funds to hold it.

If this happens, Wauneka said, he and the election board would be in an extremely awkward position.

Another factor that needs to be considered, he said, is the fact that the 2010 election for president and council delegates are just a few months away. The election office will begin accepting applications from people who want to run in February, which would b about the same time that a court-ordered election on the government reform questions would have to be held.

"If this happens, there will be a lot of confusion," Wauneka said.

The answer to all of this, he said, is simple - let the election board set up realistic guidelines that will allow an election to be held in an orderly and efficient manner.

This is what Wauneka would like to see.

The election on council reduction and the line-item veto could be held next August along with the tribal primary.

This would give the NEA a chance to hold public forums to inform tribal voters on the pros and cons.

A reapportionment would not be required until after voters decide what size council they want.

Delaying the vote until the 2010 election would delay implementation of the council reduction by four years, of course.

But, Wauneka said, this way the tribe would have the most recent census data, taken from the 2010 Census, on which to base its redistricting.

He also pointed out that the federal census takers plan to go door to door and will, for the first time, ask reservation Navajos for their chapter affiliation.

Whatever numbers are developed, they would be a great deal more accurate than any figures that could be used for reapportionment now, Wauneka said.

Back to top ^