Larry E. Hawk is From The Federal Government and He's Here to Help

Larry E. Hawk's motto.

The Cherokee Phoenix is writing a story that quite a few people have been slow to pick up on:  Larry E. Hawk from the BIA (Bossing Indians Around) is not a friend of the Cherokee Nation. 

Will Chavez writes a good story and it seems pretty clear:  The BIA wants to have its cake and eat it too.  Larry E. Hawk sent the Nation a letter a few weeks ago, saying the BIA doesn’t recognize our 1999 Constitution or our 2010 election laws.  Only he sent it to then acting principal chief S. Joe Crittenden (APCSJC), who was elected under the 2010 election laws.  If they didn’t recognize those laws, then why would they recognize APCSJC and send him a letter?  Turns out, they only want to not recognize the Cherokee Nation’s Constitution on days when they feel like it.  In this case, Mr. E. Hawk wanted to make sure non-Indians (freedmen) got to vote, so on that day, he decided the Cherokee Nation’s 1999 Constitution wasn’t in effect.

However, as Chavez pointed out, since the Constitution was implemented, the BIA has recognized us (almost) every single day of every single year.  They recognize our council members and our courts.  They give us buckets of money, which is pretty bad policy if, according to Mr. Larry E. Hawk, we are not operating under a valid Constitution.  So the Cherokee Nation is faced with two options:  Either the BIA is incompetent and has been giving the Cherokee a bunch of money when it shouldn’t, or the BIA is just trying to boss us around, even though they don’t have the right to tell us what our Constitution is or says, because, what the heck, it worked with APCSJC.

So what does Baker think? He tells the Cherokee Phoenix he’ll stand up for our sovereignty, as long as it doesn’t cost us federal funding.  “What I won’t do is risk $500 million dollars in federal funding for our 300-plus thousand Cherokee citizens.”  Which is right in line with what S. John Crittenbaker have done already, for only $30 million in HUD funds.

Baker says he’s ‘weighing the pros and cons of the BIA’s stance,’ though we’re not sure what the pros are, unless having someone telling the Cherokee Nation what to do is a pro because then we wouldn’t have to make any pesky decisions ourselves, we can just rely on the smart and trustworthy folks at the BIA to do it for us.  After all, having the federal government make decisions for us seems to have worked out really well so far. Weren't they the ones who arranged for us to relocate here in the first place?

In the meantime, Larry E. Hawk was at Baker’s inauguration and told us all this:  “I pledge to hold the Cherokee Nation’s sovereignty in high regard.”  We at the Cherokee Truth would hate to see what would happen to us if he started holding Cherokee Nation’s sovereignty in low regard. 

Election Limbo Part II, Day 18: Supreme Court Flips the Bird

Lots happening in the last couple of days, so there is a lot to analyze.  Initially, we thought it would be 48 hours before the election commission certified the results, and we could talk about the CN’s Supreme Court ruling.  But the Election Commission finished up today instead, and the results look a lot like they did before.  The totals ended up being 10,703 to 9128.  No big surprise there.  

The Cherokee Nation also released information about timelines for appeals, and it looks like October 24 would bethe earliest date for an inauguration. That would be after the timelines for recount and appeal.  If there is an appeal, it would be after that.

Why would there be an appeal?  Well, as we alluded to yesterday, the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court gave a big middle finger to APCSJC by issuing an order saying Crittenden “entered into an agreement… that contained terms that were in direct violation of the Constitution and an order of this court….”.  The order also said that APCSJC “had no authority under the Constitution to bind the Cherokee People to an agreement without their consent when such agreement would violate a provision of the Cherokee Nation Constitution.” 

That agreement, FYI, was the agreement that made Freedmen citizens again, right before the federal judge was about to rule that they weren’t.

  

The Justices are basically telling everyone that the election, where hundreds of Freedmen voted and hundreds of late votes were counted in Baker’s home town, should have ended on September 24, because that is what Cherokee Nation’s laws said to do.  But it’s not what S. John Crittenbaker wanted, so it’s not the deal they made with the freedmen and BIA.  The deal they made broke tribal law, and the Supreme Court sat up, took notice, and made said metaphorical gesture.

 

So how will this all shake out? Baker will want the freedmen votes to count, because he won.  Smith would probably want the election thrown out, because it was done in violation of tribal law (and he lost).  The Cherokee people probably just want it all to be over.

Election Limbo Part II, Day 14: John Blutarsky Edition

The voting is over right?  Please tell us the voting is over right?  That’s what the schedule says, that’s what the calendar says, but if there’s anything we’ve learned from this election, it’s that we should never say it’s over.   

We thought it was going to be over June 25.  Then we thought Baker won on the 26^th.  Then we thought Smith won on the 27^th.  Then we thought it would be over after the recount.  After the Election Commission botched that one, we thought it would be over after the court hearing, and their own personal recount.  We bet Smith hoped so too, because he was ahead then.  But was it over any of those times?   

Nope.  A new election was scheduled.  So we thought it would be over on September 24.  But then S. John Crittenbaker decided to extend the election two weeks for the freedmen, and then, AFTER ELECTION DAY, they decided SOME Cherokees could still vote, as long as, heaven forbid, they didn’t mail in their absentee ballots.  The Election Commission then decided that Cherokees who voted by mail deserved just as much an opportunity to vote as the ones who live in Tahlequah.  But it’s still not over.  Not even today.  Or tomorrow.

When will it be over?  Well, to quote an American icon:  “Nothing’s over until we decide it is!  Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?”

Ummmm…. No.  

We’re putting the over-under for the inauguration as Halloween.  Which side is the smart money on?

Stayed tuned: tomorrow we get unofficial, semi-formal, partial results from the election commission.

Cherokee Truth will tell you what the numbers mean tomorrow night.

Election Limbo Part II, Day 8: Faulty Reasoning

Our readers are having a spirited debate over whose ‘fault’ it is we are in the situation we are in, after Kennedy’s court ruling on Friday.

 

Using the facts at hand, let’s figure out if Smith is at fault, if Baker is at fault, or, quite frankly, if there is anything to be at fault for, when, as the Attorney General says, we got everything we asked for.  And if there is credit, to whom is that due?

Let’s start, say, in the disco era.  Back in the 70s, when Ross Swimmer was representing our Nation while wearing leisure suits (we’re guessing), there was some debate over whether freedmen could be citizens if they weren’t also Indians. There was a federal court case, called Nero v. Cherokee Nation, which the Cherokee Nation won.  In that case, the federal government basically said the Cherokee Nation can determine its own citizenship. 

So… freedmen were not citizens prior to 1995 (when Baker got on the council), nor were they citizens prior to 1999 (when Smith was elected).  So we have to look at what happened when they (Baker & Smith) were in office.

In 1999, Smith was elected without freedmen votes.  He beat Joe Byrd, and Smith’s running mate, the late Hastings Shade, beat Bill John Baker for Deputy Chief.  Again, no freedmen votes. Why? Because they weren't citizens.

In 2003, Smith was elected again, and Baker won a council seat after John Ketcher retired.  No freedmen voted.  But, losing candidates in that election complained that freedmen weren’t able to vote, and that eventually turned into the case Vann v. Salazar, that was dismissed Friday night. So let’s focus on that case.  

In 2003, the freedmen tried keep Smith from being recognized as Chief with their lawsuit.  He was recognized.  In 2007, they tried to stop the election from happening, but it went forward anyway.  By 2011, the freedmen hadn’t won anything in the Vann v. Salazar case, and there was no federal law or treaty saying the freedmen had citizenship rights in the Cherokee Nation, even though they’d been arguing that for 8 years.  So until last week’s settlement between S. John Crittenbaker, the Freedmen and the BIA, freedmen didn’t have any citizenship rights because of the federal government.

So, the fact that there is now a federal court order granting freedmen citizenship rights (which APCSJC has said he thinks is the right thing, no matter what the Cherokee Nation Constitution says--- or as the court order he agreed to said “notwithstanding any provision of tribal law to the contrary.”), is entirely due to the fact that Crittenden AGREED to it.

So how did freedmen get citizenship before last week?  Well, in 2006 the Cherokee Nation JAT (soon to be renamed the Supreme Court) ruled in Allen v. Cherokee Nation Tribal Council that anyone with an ancestor listed on the Dawes Rolls was now eligible for citizenship, whether the person on the Dawes Rolls was Indian or not.  So that’s when freedmen (and don’t forget the inter-married whites) got to be citizens.  And it wasn’t because of what a treaty said. It was because of what the Cherokee Nation Constitution and our Supreme Court said.  The Justices who decided that were: Stacy Leeds (appointed by Smith), Darrell Dowty (appointed by Byrd originally, reappointed by Smith) and Darell Matlock (appointed by Smith). 

So if you believe the judicial branch is an independent branch of government, this isn’t Baker’s fault or Smith’s fault.  If you don’t believe the judicial branch is an independent branch of government, then brush up on your Cherokee Nation Constitution and do something about that.

In 2007, the Cherokee people passed a Constitutional amendment, going back to the old way.  Both Baker and Smith supported the people’s right to vote on the issue, but neither took a public stance, as far as we can tell, telling people which way they should vote.

In the meantime, Stacy Leeds quit the Supreme Court and decided she’d run for Chief instead.  So maybe some of the ‘blame’ for all this should go to her!

Since then, we’ve been in both tribal and federal court.

Smith has defended the Constitution, because, well, that’s what we elect a chief to do and that’s the oath he takes as Chief.  He stood up in both tribal and federal court for the Cherokee people’s right to amend their Constitution.  Until the last couple of weeks, we could say the same thing for Baker, but not Crittenden.

Crittenden voted against even letting the Cherokee people vote on this (see June 2006 Council Meeting Minutes) after the Freedmen were made citizens and has been one of the biggest freedmen supporters on the tribal council.  Again, that’s his right as an elected official, but when the Constitution was amended, he still took an oath to defend it, not sabotage it in federal court.  Baker is complicit, because he has pushed so hard to get freedmen votes into this election.

The fact that there is still a federal court case going (Cherokee Nation v. Nash) could be viewed as both Smith and Baker’s fault (again, if there really is a 'fault').  Remember, the tribal council has to approve any lawsuits, and that case was filed back in 2009 and no one has made a stink about it being a bad thing until now.  And to us, it seems like winning a lawsuit doesn’t weaken your case in a similar lawsuit, it only strengthens it, so we’re not sure how winning the DC case is bad news for the Cherokee Nation.  

The only time the Cherokee Nation lost anything in the DC case was when Crittenden willingly signed an order-- in full knowledge it violated Cherokee law--and made freedmen citizens anyway. And that, friends, is why we are still in Election mode, a week after the special election was supposed to end. 
 

Election Limbo Part II, Day 7: Kennedy’s Curve Ball

Judge Henry Kennedy

For the second time in 10 days, Judge Henry Kennedy out of Washington, DC has weighed in.  Late on Friday, he dismissed the 8 year old case the freedmen brought against Cherokee Nation.  So the Freedmen lost.  Does that mean the Cherokee Nation won?  Well, according to the Cherokee Nation’s Attorney General, absolutely.

Diane Hammons said that the order from the judge was “exactly what the Cherokee Nation had asked for.” News reports also quoted Smith as saying “Today’s ruling proves that when the Cherokee Nation stands up and fights for its rights, it can win.”

According to media reports, freedmen retain citizenship rights as part of the deal Crittenden, the freedmen and the BIA cut in Washington DC-- and Smith has some choice words to say about that on his Facebook page.

“Because Crittenden and his running mate Bill John Baker counted on the votes of non-Indian freedmen descendants, they willingly gave them citizenship rights just moments before a federal judge was going to rule that the Cherokee Nation didn't have to.  Bill John Baker won't stand up to the BIA and the freedmen:  when they could've won the case, they compromised instead.”

Baker, of course, says the Cherokee Nation won in spite of Smith, not because of him, and takes a less than optimistic view:   "We should fully expect and prepare for the Federal Government to sue our Nation and Chad Smith has proven over seven years he's not up to the task of defending us. Indeed his actions have prolonged this process."

Then he starts talking about Cherforce One again and secret, unknown deals made by Smith.  Well, S. John Crittenbaker’s deal was done in open court, and just because you give up sovereignty in full public view doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

So, in some ways this doesn’t effect our election.  Even though the freedmen lost their case, they still get to vote. 

In other ways, it really does effect the election! Remember the last two things that happened in the case, right before it got dismissed? 1) Grant voting rights to Baker supporters (who aren't Indians) and 2) extend voting after the election at Baker’s request (but only in Tahlequah).

If there hadn’t been a compromise by S. John Crittenbaker to give the freedmen citizenship and the right to vote along with extended voting privileges, it looks like Judge Kennedy would never have interfered, because afterall-- he was about to throw the whole case out! Oh, and we wouldn't be writing this blog BECAUSE THE ELECTION WOULD ALREADY BE OVER.

All we know for sure now is that Judge Henry Kennedy finally did what he intended to do on September 20th-- so at least now he can't be used by Crittenbaker, the Freedmen and the BIA to throw any more curve balls into this election.  

Click here to read Judge Kennedy's opinion.

Election Limbo Part II, Day 6: Two Bulls are Better Than One

One of our readers sent us this link to this political cartoon:

 

Courtesy: Indian Country Today

 

We’re pretty sure S. John Crittenbaker is out of the tree already.  Megaprops to Marty Two Bulls, who does great work.  You should check out his web site http://m2bulls.com/ and buy some stuff.

Election Limbo Part II, Day 5: Predictions Based on Truth (but predictions/guesses all the same)

We are kind of used to early voting, which Cherokee Nation Election Commission calls, oxymoronically, In-Person Absentee Voting.  That all happens before the election.  Today, we’ve entered the brave new world of late voting, which occurs when the rules for an election change after Election Day.  Only in the Cherokee Nation, right?

Well, there’s been a big fuss by both candidates about what this means, and if it’s fair.  Today, we’re trying to figure out how much it will matter, if at all.

We have no official numbers, but our reliable sources say the election commission was not that busy today.  Nowhere near what it was like for a typical day of early voting.  According to the Election Commission, about 1100 people voted in early voting for the September election, in four days of walk-in voting.  That’s 275 folks a day. 

So let’s guess about half that today, just to be safe: maybe 150. 

We know from the June election that Baker won the Tahlequah walk-in voting 609 to 427 (which of course is why he and Crittenden-- S. John Crittenbaker-- probably wanted it reopened after they took a close look at the turnout)

That’s basically a 60-40 split. 

A 60-40 split for 150 voters is 90 for Baker and 60 for Smith.  So, if Baker gains 30 votes a day on Smith, for five days, he’ll be 150 votes closer to (or further ahead of) Smith than he was before Baker asked for the rules to change.  That’s not an insignificant number, but it’s hardly earth-shattering.  

If Baker does gain 150 votes here, how many does he really gain overall?  Because while his plan was only to allow Cherokees in Oklahoma to vote, the election commission said that to be fair to all Cherokees, absentee ballots could be turned in late too.  And those tend to favor Smith.  Using the original count numbers, Smith got about 56% of mail in ballots, to Bakers 44%. 

So for every 100 late absentee ballots that come in, Smith would stand to gain 12 votes on Baker.  Let’s just guess and say 200 total come in.  So Smith nets 24, and Bakers gain is down to 126 votes.  Finally, there’s the freedmen vote, but only the freedmen who haven’t already voted and aren’t already included in the 8787 voters that scared Baker on Sunday and had him asking for the rules to change.

Smith, Baker and everyone else seem to think most of those will go to Baker, but how many will that be?  We’ve heard there are 1000 or so Freedmen voters.  How many more will vote that haven’t already?  200?  300?

So here’s our guess, based on the facts at hand.  Baker nets about 150 more votes than Smith on walk-ins.  Baker nets 300 more than Smith freedmen votes that haven’t been counted.  And Smith gains 30 or so on Baker with late absentee ballots. That means Baker's maneuvering to change the election rules after the fact might gain him 120 votes or so.  The freedmen that he already has in his back pocket are another few hundred.  So a best case scenario for Baker is he picks up 420 votes from where he was on Saturday.  Is that enough to ease his fears?  Considering that the voting was so close in June, he has to be at least happier.

Keep in mind, this is all guess work, but based on the known facts that we have on hand.  Feel free to give your own guesses, but please use facts to back them up.