“Recall. Upon receipt and verification by the Tribal Secretary of a petition of thirty (30) percent of the number of persons who voted in the last tribal election, it shall be the duty of the Tribal Council to call a special election to consider the recall of the elected tribal official named in the petition. The election shall be held within thirty days of verification of the petition by the Tribal Secretary, provided that if the petition is submitted within six months of the next annual election the Tribal Council may direct that the matter be placed on the ballot for that election. If a majority of those actually voting in favor of the recall of the official, the office shall be declared vacant and filled in accordance with this Constitution.”I remember when the grassroots movement was started to amend the RST Constitution and By-Laws several years ago. A group of concerned and extremely dedicated tribal members took it upon themselves to circulate a petition to call for a Constitutional Convention. This group made two or three attempts before they actually gathered enough valid signatures to submit a legitimate petition to the Tribal Secretary’s office. I admired this group which was comprised of mostly Lakota women. They worked very hard to collect the required number of signatures for the people to have an opportunity at constitutional reform. Their efforts lead to the first ever Constitutional Convention which was held in 2004 on the Rosebud Reservation. Several sections of the RST Constitution and By Laws were approved for amendment by a vote of the people and these took effect on September 20, 2007. As someone who writes to keep the people informed of things that happen in tribal government, I get telephone calls from concerned tribal members. Also, when you work for a newspaper you sometimes receive copies of interesting documents from people. As part of my responsibility to my people, I stand behind my right to keep my sources anonymous. In my opinion, most of the documents addressed to tribal officials should be available to tribal members unless they are marked confidential because of legal proceedings. I also respect the fact that there are highly sensitive documents, such as the signed voter lists from our past tribal elections, which should not be available for public view under any circumstances. Earlier this month, during one of my visits to tribal headquarters, I was handed copies of two letters written by a tribal member. One letter is dated January 26, 2011, and is addressed to the Tribal Secretary “requesting a copy of the 2009 RST Voter List.” The second letter is dated February 3, 2011 and is addressed to the RST Election Board Chairman. The letter reads in part “Please note this is my second request for a copy of the 2009 Election Voter’s List. So there can be no confusion regarding my request I am asking for the list of those who actually voted in the 2009 election, not the list of registered voters in 2009.” It seems to me that the only real reason someone would want a copy of the list of the people who “actually voted in the 2009 election” is to see which tribal members to approach in order to obtain valid signatures on proposed petitions to begin the initiative, referendum, recall or removal process on the Rosebud Reservation. I believe it would be a violation of my privacy if the document showing whether or not I voted in the 2009 election was released to a member of the general public. When I go to vote on Election Day the community election committee requires my signature on the tribal voter registration list to acknowledge that I received a ballot. This is the list the tribal member is asking to be copied and released. If this list of tribal members who signed and “actually voted in the 2009 election” on the Rosebud Reservation were to be made available to the general public, I would definitely want to be given notice so I could have time to file an injunction in tribal court to stop a blatant violation of my privacy as a tribal voter. I don’t want to be stalked by people who need valid signatures on any petition. The grassroots movement which sparked the Constitutional Convention did not receive the signed list of actual voters. They had to do their own work to gather signatures. In my opinion, if you want to take on the job of gathering 30 percent of the electorate signatures you must be willing to do your own work. Vi Waln is Sicangu Lakota and an enrolled member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. Her columns were awarded first place in the South Dakota Newspaper Association 2010 contest. She is Editor of the Lakota Country Times and can be reached through email at vi@lakotacountrytimes.com. Related Stories:
Vi Waln: Settlement in Indian trust fund case benefits just handful (2/7)
Vi Waln: Women form the backbone of Lakota society and culture (1/31)
Vi Waln: Holding Indian Health Service accountable to its patients (1/24)
Vi Waln: Ignorance rears its head with posting about 'ugly' prayer (1/17)
Vi Waln: Don't believe everything in the media about reservation (1/10)
Vi Waln: Tribal identification cards deserve recognition everywhere (1/3)
Vi Waln: December a difficult month for tribes in the Great Plains (12/21)
Vi Waln: Mexico's Indigenous people aim to protect sacred sites (12/13)
Vi Waln: Indian Country must look within to address youth suicide (12/6)
Vi Waln: Lakota people encounter threats to their water source (11/29)
Vi Waln: Lakota of South Dakota remain invisible in many ways (11/24)
Join the Conversation
