Term limit unreasonable, Shirley's lawyer says

There is no logical reason why limiting a person to two terms is beneficial to the Navajo people or the Navajo government.

That's the argument President Joe Shirley Jr. plans to make as he seeks court approval to run for a third term in office, said Gallup attorney David Jordan, who has been hired by Shirley to come up with the legal arguments to persuade Navajo jurists.

Shirley announced Wednesday that he is running for a third term, despite the law restricting the president to two consecutive terms.

It's certain that his candidacy will be challenged on that basis, and equally certain that the ultimate decision will rest with the Navajo Nation Supreme Court.

"I think Joe Shirley has a stronger argument for being allowed to run than Vern Lee did," said Jordan, referring to a Fruitland, N.M., man who successfully challenged another part of the law, which required that candidates reside on the reservation for at least three years prior to running.

The Supreme Court ruled that it was the right of the Navajo voter to decide who is qualified to lead and that the law imposed an arbitrary restriction on potential candidates.

In Lee's case, said Jordan, the government could have argued that it was important for a person to have some knowledge of issues facing the government and that living off the reservation would put a person at some distance from that knowledge.

"But what reasonable reason can they give for saying that someone should not serve more than two terms as president?" Jordan said.

He agreed that there should be limits on who should be allowed to run.

"You don't want someone with a felony conviction to be president," he said, although Navajo law actually allows that if the felony is over five years old.

But, Jordan argued, the restrictions have to outweigh the right of voters to choose who they want to lead them, and it will be up to the Supreme Court to delineate that balance.

He also said term limits are a foreign concept within Navajo society.

"It's common in the bilagáana world but not here," he said.

That argument would have been more important a few months ago, but the council passed a law in January that said Navajo fundamental law does not supercede statutory laws or policies.

In other words, when an issue has to be decided between what the council passes and Navajo tradition mandates, the council will prevail. Shirley vetoed the bill, saying the council was attempting to put its laws above the inherited law of the Navajo people, but the council voted to override his veto.

In two current cases, the Supreme Court asked lawyers for briefs on the proper role of Diné Fundamental Law, in light of the new council law, but it has not yet issued a ruling that directly addresses the prohibition.

A press release put out by the council said that Shirley probably hoped to use Diné Fundamental Law if his candidacy was challenged but the main thrust of Shirley's argument will be to challenge the reasonableness of the term-limits law, Jordan said.

Back to top ^