Nez gets OK to run for prez

WINDOW ROCK

Navajo Nation Vice President and presidential candidate Jonathan Nez is still “legally qualified to run” in the race for president as determined by Office of Hearings and Appeals Wednesday afternoon.

Hearing officer Richie Nez (no relation to Jonathan Nez) presided over a quick hearing on former candidate for president Vincent Yazzie’s grievance against the vice president.

Yazzie claimed that Nez should be removed from the ballot for having a driving under the influence conviction in 2002 from the Flagstaff Municipal Court after he was found to be driving with an alcohol level of .15. Yazzie claims Nez lied on his application when he did not list that conviction.

But after less than an hour of debate and a brief recess, Richie Nez came back with his decision and stated Jonathan Nez is still in the running.

“Qualifications for office is specifically set out for each office, in this the office of the president of the Navajo Nation,” said Ritchie Nez. “It says do you have any felonies within the last five years and did you commit any misdemeanors of certain types …

“If the answer is no then you meet the qualifications for office and my view there is no conflict when you read those two statutes together,” he said.

“I’m going to grant the motion … the grievance is insufficient and Mr. Jonathan Nez is legally qualified to run for office.”

Yazzie was represented by former chief prosecutor Bernadine Martin and Jonathan Nez was represented by Gallup attorney David Jordan.

During the hearing Martin stated that Yazzie’s grievance had to do with Title 11 of the Navajo Nation Code and that the statute requires candidates to report any conviction of felony or misdemeanor effecting qualifications for office.

“That’s a more broad standard, that’s a more broad requirement for elected officials to meet,” argued Martin. “So we go from more broad requirements for qualification and then there’s these sub-qualification for specific offices. Mr. Nez is citing the qualification for the office of the president, we don’t dispute those its in the code.”

But, she said, further into the code it states there is a general requirement that all misdemeanors and felonies be reported that would effect qualifications. This is where Martin cited another case, Terlyn Sherlock Vs. Navajo Election Administration, where the defendant had to report her conviction of shoplifting and underage drinking, which was set aside and had occurred 22 years prior. OHA decided in December 2017 that Sherlock be removed from the school board.

“Our argument is this should’ve been reported,” argued Martin about Nez. “It should’ve been on his candidacy application.”

Jordan said that the Sherlock case is very different because school board candidates may not have had a felony and it does not list the last five years for disclosure. So a 21-year-old conviction is relevant to a school board case but not presidential case.

“A conviction that is not in the last five years doesn’t effect the candidacy,” argued Jordan. “It is very clear a conviction that happens outside the window does not need to be disclosed. There was nothing wrong with Mr. Nez’s representation at the time he filed his candidacy application.”

Jonathan Nez, who was accompanied by his wife, Phifelia Herbert-Nez, his running mate Myron Lizer, and other supporters, said the only concern he had was delaying the election the way it was delayed four years ago.

“We are now going to focus on our campaign and the issues the Navajo people are wanting us to address,” said Jonathan Nez, after the decision was made.
When asked if he would appeal the decision, Yazzie he was vague.

“Appeals cost money,” said Yazzie. “A lot of brain work but there’s no refunds. You still burn the cash and when you do that kind of work you cook your brain. The cash has to be there.”

---