Protests denied

Observer Staff

11/26/2003 12:00:00 AM

All six protests filed over recent Saginaw Chippewa elections were denied, ruled an appeals judge on Nov. 13.

Because of the similar nature of some of the protests, Election Appeals Judge Vanya Hogen addressed them together.

The protests and rulings include:

-Delores Jackson, Tim Davis, Amanda George-Dye, Jeanette Leaureaux and Diana Quigno-Grundahl claimed "coercion through misappropriation of Tribal funds, misuse of authority and assets of the Tribe" in the two protests they filed.

The protests alleged that Chief Maynard Kahgegab Jr. used a firm contracted to represent the Tribe and Tribal Council for himself exclusively. This included "re-election strategy, advertisement and printed material promoting himself or any others he chooses, for re-election."

Hogen ruled that "Kahgegab did not threaten to take away per capita distributions made to Tribal members who refused to vote for him."

"No evidence or testimony based on personal knowledge was introduced to substantiate the protesters' allegations that Kahgegab printed and distributed any campaign flyers or letters with Tribal funds," Hogen also stated in her decision.

-Gerald McDonald also claimed coercion because of the mailings he received in a protest he filed separately.

"The letter states I must vote for the list of candidates Mr. Kahgegab has chosen or I will lose my per capita payments the day after the election if the individuals on the list don't make it on Tribal Council," stated McDonald in his protest. "The people on his list are not candidates I wanted to vote for, but I feel I had no choice, I am being coerced."

Hogen found that "only Gerald McDonald indicated he had unwillingly changed his vote in the regular election because of the campaign flyers and letters distributed by Kahgegab."

"No other individuals testified that their voting had been influenced by the Kahgegab flyers or the flyers distributed at the polls and/or Tribal Center on the day of the regular election," stated Hogen.

-Brenda Champlin also alleged Kahgegab imposed a personal campaign strategy on the Tribe's "expense that intimidates and threatens the members' per capita benefits to solicit, persuade or endeavor to persuade votes to re-elect himself and the current leadership."

Hogen found that the "campaign flyers and letters distributed by Kahgegab were not coercive."

"The flyers simply enunciated Kahgegab's election platform: that he (and the candidates he identified) promised not to lower per capita payments made to Tribal members if re-elected," she also stated. "This platform was contrasted in Kahgegab's campaign materials with claims that other candidates running for office had intimated they would lower per capita payments to Tribal members."

-Terri Rueckert filed a protest for both elections relating to an alleged failed drug screen for one of the candidates.

"I would like the Election Appeals Judge to request and review all the candidates drug screen results to see how many violations actually occurred," stated Rueckert in the protest.

She also claimed that there had been a violation of the election process because voters "were not required to present Tribal voter registration cards when voting in the regular election."

Hogen stated in her findings of fact that at the primary election on Oct. 14 that voters were required to present both a state-sponsored identification card and a Tribal voter registration card before they were permitted to vote. During the Nov. 4 general election, voters were required to present a state-sponsored identification card, but were not required to present a Tribal voter registration card before being permitted to vote.

"The issue of whether voters were required to present Tribal voter registration cards as identification at the polls has been addressed in this forum once before," according to her ruling. "The decision did not find, however, that the Tribal Clerk was obliged to require voters to present the Tribal voter registration cards and the ordinance cannot be read to impose such a duty on the Tribal Clerk or the Caucus Committee.

"More importantly, however, Ms. Rueckert did not allege or offer any proof that anyone was denied the right to vote or was improperly permitted to vote because the Tribal Clerk or the Caucus Committee required that voter registration cards be presented at the primary, but not the regular election."

In regard to the other issue raised in the Rueckert protest, "it has been the practice of the Tribal Clerk and the Caucus Committee to permit candidates who test positive for a particular drug to run for office if the candidate can show that he or she has a valid and current prescription for a drug that could cause the positive result."

"At the hearing, testimony demonstrated that prior to allowing candidates X's name to be placed on the ballot for the primary election, the Caucus Committee met with the doctor who had prescribed two of the prescriptions listed on Candidate X's prescription drug history.

"The doctor informed the committee that, in his view, and based upon a review of �Basic and Clinical Pharmacology,' 8th edition, one of the prescriptions �may' have caused the positive result...therefore, there was no election irregularity or violation of Ordinance No. 4 by permitting candidate X's name to be inlcuded on the ballot for the primary election," stated Hogen in the ruling.

-Incumbent Steve Pego-who finished 21st in the primary election-originally filed his protest over the Oct. 14 election. He maintained the results should have been invalidated because the ballot contained the names of two persons who were either "ineligible candidate(s), or who had withdrawn from the ballot prior to the election.

Jacqueline Wemigwans and Kimberly Sue Sawmick withdrew from the election, even though their names still appeared on the ballot. Wemigwans notched 23 votes and Sawmick 45.

"The names of the two candidates described above should not have been on the ballot for the regular, primary election of Oct. 14, 2003, and that sufficient time was available for these names to be removed from said ballot before its presentation to voters on Oct. 14, 2003," according to the Pego protest.

Hogen ruled the "Tribal Clerk and Caucus Committee admitted that the names of two candidates who had withdrawn were on the ballot for the primary election, but argued that no violation of Ordinance No. 4 had occurred because they gave voters reasonable notice that the two candidates had withdrawn."

At the hearing, Pego asserted the Tribal Clerk could have had the ballots reprinted without the two names or cross out the names on the ballot.