Judge orders constitutional reform effort to continue; Tribal leaders say decision is flawed and should be appealed by the Interior

Scott Csernyik

9/18/2001 12:00:00 AM

A federal judge has recently ruled in favor of a lawsuit which orders the secretary of the Interior to conduct an election of a proposed new Tribal constitution for the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.

U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson of the Eastern District of Michigan's Northern Division granted plaintiff Gloria King's motion for summary judgement on Aug. 29. King is a District 3 (At-Large) member and acting spokesperson for the proposed constitutional changes originally initiated about four years ago. The suit named Gail Norton, secretary of the Interior and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs as defendants.

Proponents of a new constitution say this reform is necessary to solve membership problems and create a balance of power. Opponents to the proposed amendments claim the document is loaded with inherent legal problems and would dramatically change Tribal membership.

"We need a Bill of Rights, something in writing, something that is a living document so that the people know what is expected of them," King stated. She has also previously said the Tribe "needs to be dragged into the 20th century."

"We need a constitution that can meet the needs of our growing Tribe," she also stated in an interview prior to a the cancelling of a constitutional convention planned for about two years ago in Traverse City.

The ruling overturns a Sept. 22, 1999 decision by the Bureau of Indian Affairs over the number of necessary signatures needed to initiate possible constitutional reform. Under federal law, a vote on a Tribal Constitution can be held if petitioners collect the signatures of at least one-third of the Tribe's eligible voters.

The Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Council disagrees with the decision, citing "serious legal problems with the proposed constitution."

"The court improperly ordered the immediate election, which under federal law cannot be held until the secretary of the Interior reviews the proposed constitution to determine whether it violates federal law," according to an Aug. 31 press release issued by the Tribe. "That review has not occurred. We intend to seek a clarification of this ruling and will push for a full review of the proposed amendment before any election.

"It is our firm belief that there are such serious legal problems with the proposed constitution that the secretary of the Interior could not approve it even if Tribal members voted for the changes."

In his opinion, Lawson chastised the BIA for an "abuse of discretion" on how it calculated the requisite number of valid signatures initiating the petitioning proces to amend the Tribal Constitution.

"The final determination of the agency of the number of valid signatures for each voting district must, therefore be sustained," wrote Lawson. "Those numbers, once again, are 211 signatures in District 1, 20 signatures from District 2 and 549 from District 3.

"It is apparent that the petitioners have gathered more than one-third of the eligible voters' signatures in each voting district. They were required to obtain 173 signatures in District 1 and they obtained 211; 16 signatures were required in District 2 and 20 were obtained; 458 signatures were required to be collected in District 3 and the petition submitted 549 valid signatures.

"The petitioners have submitted the necessary signatures to trigger the provision in Article VII of the Tribal Constitution requiring the secretary to call an election. The determination that the petitions were numerically insufficient was contrary to law, arbitrary capricious and capricious and constituted an abuse of discretion."

The Tribal Council-issued press release stated Lawson's decision set a "dangerous precedent."

"If this opinion is allowed to stand, there will be no effective limit on the length of petition drive-they could go on indefinitely until the proponents gathered enough signatures, even if the number of eligible voters significantly changes.

"In this case, the former Tribal Council illegally removed a number of Tribal members from the membership rolls, thereby reducing the number of signatures needed to call for a secretarial election. The BIA computed the number of signatures required using these erroneous figures.

"Although the Tribe later restored these people to the membership rolls and sent a corrected voter list to the BIA, the court's ruling would prevent the BIA from correcting the number of signatures required. As a result, the proponents of the new constitution benefited from the wrongdoing of the former Tribal Council, which manipulated the voter list to give them a lower target number of petition signatures. This is wrong."

It is not known at press deadline if the BIA has decided to appeal the decision.

The current Tribal administration has also stated if it is the will of the voting members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe to change its constitution, then they will support a secretarial election to let the people decide.

"However, we do not believe these proposals represent the wishes of our members today," the press release concluded.