Reapportionment reopens debate over Council size

WINDOW ROCK

Fifteen years after Navajo voters cut the Navajo Nation Council from 88 delegates to 24, the tribe is again debating how many lawmakers should serve 110 chapters, and whether the Nation can afford a larger government.

The discussion is unfolding as the Navajo Nation undertakes formal reapportionment, redrawing Legislative districts based on the 2020 Census and tribal population models.

Four mapping plans presented to the public would reshape which chapters share a delegate, including remote districts such as Shonto, Navajo Mountain, Oljato, Inscription House, Dennehotso, To’hajiilee, Alamo and Ramah.

Interim Navajo Election Administration Director Veronica Shirley said Wednesday that each plan approaches population and representation differently. Some count off-reservation voters, while others rely solely on census figures.

“Right now, the report itself, there are four plans,” she said, meaning voters may face distinctly different political realities depending on which map is chosen.

Under the current system, each Legislative Representation Area elects one delegate, regardless of how many chapters it contains. The proposals range from tightly grouped districts centered on cultural and geographic ties to broad combinations that mix distant communities.

Different maps, different futures

For example, under Plans 1 and 3, Shonto, Navajo Mountain, Inscription House and Oljato remain together, but Dennehotso is separated into a district with Kayenta and Chilchinbeto.

Plan 2 keeps those northern chapters together, creating a larger but more unified region for border-area advocacy.

Plan 4 splits Inscription House from the group and assigns it to central Western communities, weakening long-standing ties.

Satellite regions face similar choices. Plans 1 and 3 keep To’hajiilee, Ramah and Alamo together in a standalone district, acknowledging their isolation from the main reservation.

Plans 2 and 4 split Ramah into a different LRA and place To’hajiilee and Alamo alongside larger Eastern chapters, a shift that could blend their voices into broader population blocs.

The differences are more than political theory.

Historically, these regions had multiple representatives before consolidation. Between 1983 and 1986, four different lawmakers represented Shonto, Navajo Mountain, Oljato and Inscription House.

Representation fluctuated through the 1990s and 2000s until 2011, when Herman Daniels Sr. of Oljato, Lena Manheimer of Inscription House and Navajo Mountain, and Jonathan Nez of Shonto carried the region’s voice.

Today, Herman Daniels Jr. represents all four chapters alone.

To’hajiilee, Ramah and Alamo likewise once had separate delegates, including George Platero, Frank Guerro, Jerry Pino and others, until their seats were merged.

Currently, Norman Begay represents all three, a single vote for disconnected communities hundreds of miles apart.

Consolidation and its consequences

Those consolidations were triggered by CAP-10-11, a sweeping reform enacted when Navajo voters reduced the Council from 88 seats to 24. Former President Ben Shelly described the change as a restructuring of government to improve committee efficiency and oversight.

Delegates argue it also intensified their workload.

Parrish, who represents Dennehotso, Kayenta and Chilchinbeto, said communities judge lawmakers solely on what they deliver locally.

“They elected me to be their voice,” she said, calling the work “the most humbling experience” she has ever held, one made harder by long travel, strained staffing and competing demands.

Her concern now is what happens if voters reverse course and expand representation. A larger Council, she said, would increase costs not only for delegate salaries but also for Legislative assistants, office operations, district outreach, travel, committee staffing and election administration.

“The amount of revenue coming into the Nation is finite,” Parrish said, noting that expanding the government means dividing the same dollars among more officials.

She described the dilemma as slicing a fixed budget thinner and warned that additional lawmakers might need secondary jobs if salaries cannot keep pace.

Parrish said increased representation would ripple across government: more committee positions, more auditors, additional buildings or office space, expanded legal staff and potentially more vehicles to reach remote areas. A referendum would also carry election costs, including translation, staffing, ballot materials and poll officials, expenses that Shirley said would fall to the Election Administration if Council approves such a measure.

“More representation also means more cost,” Parrish said, adding that even under the existing system, “nothing is being done to avoid” rising strain on delegates or staff.

When line-item vetoes block funding, she said, communities are left to absorb the consequences.

“Who does he hurt?” Parrish asked.

Stakes of reapportionment

Shirley said whichever LRA plan is chosen will be used for the next election, changing district boundaries even without increasing delegate seats. Any expansion would require separate legislation and a voter referendum.

“There will be costs involved,” she said.

The mapping proposals reflect competing principles. Plans 1 and 3 keep northern border chapters compact and retain a dedicated district for satellite communities. Plans 2 and 4 integrate those satellites into broader eastern districts and adjust border-area communities differently. Plans 1 and 2 consider off-reservation voters, while Plans 3 and 4 focus strictly on residents living on Navajo land.

Ron Haven, the legal counsel for the Navajo Board of Election Supervisors, reminded lawmakers during a work session that Navajo electoral law is not simply arithmetic.

“Any plan adopted for the Navajo Nation must take into account chapter boundaries, agency boundaries, district grazing boundaries, and other geographical symbols of the traditional relationship with the Navajo people,” he told delegates on Dec. 5.

Daniels has emphasized that reality firsthand, saying it is not possible to represent Shonto and Navajo Mountain simultaneously when meetings overlap and travel spans hours.

Begay, who represents three noncontiguous districts, acknowledged during the work session that he may consider legislation to increase representation because satellite communities feel unheard.

Parrish said she is watching the process closely and believes delegates are searching for solutions, whether through district shifts, increasing seats or rethinking governance entirely. She suggested the Nation may even need a bicameral system or a formal role for chapter presidents.

“Why can’t we have a House of Representatives of our own?” Parrish asked.

Whether the solution is a larger Council, a new structure or a rebalanced 24-seat map, she said the Nation must confront both sides of the equation: what citizens want from their government and what it takes to pay for it.

“There’s different ways to go about this,” Parrish said. “I think it’s just Council delegates trying to find a solution.”

Get instant access to this story by purchasing one of our many e-edition subscriptions HERE at our Navajo Times Store.

---