Native Sun News: Rosebud Sioux court declines to halt election

Thursday, July 28, 2011  

The following story was written and reported by Ernestine Chasing Hawk. All content © Native Sun News.

ROSEBUD, SOUTH DAKOTA –– Council members from the Rosebud Sioux Tribe are trying to squeeze in one more term ignoring a Constitutional revision limiting them to serving two consecutive terms.

According to RST member Oliver J. Semans Sr. a RST constitutional revision that was approved on Sept. 20, 2007 by the Secretary of the Interior, is now the law.

The term limit provision at Article III Section 2 states: “The offices of the President, Vice President, Council Representatives, Secretary, and Treasurer shall be subject to limits of two consecutive terms.”

Semans has filed a Temporary Restraining Order seeking an injunction to bar the Rosebud Sioux Tribe from holding their Primary election on July 28, 2011.

“I filed against the tribe, the president, council and the election board. Although I am not a real attorney I can and have practiced in Tribal court and have filed appeals before the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Supreme Court. Our Constitution came into effect on September 20, 2007, which limited officials to only two consecutive terms in office,” Semans said.

He said the Tribe was to create ordinances in 2007 setting term limits and stagger the terms.

“Most of the Council members on Council were also on Council back in 2007, and they failed to create an ordinance until recently and while doing so allowed those in office after the constitutional change to squeeze in three terms instead of two,” he said.

The election ordinance allows Tribal members to challenge any candidate from running for office, which he said he refuses to do, “I like the candidates, but I want to have our Tribe follow the constitution they swore under oath to uphold. We have no way of challenging the election boards decisions on qualifications of candidates so I chose to go after the Tribe in court.”

The two candidates with terms in question are Byron Andrews from the Milks Camp District and Russell Eagle Bear from the Black Pipe District. Eagle Bear is the only candidate running in his district.

“I did not challenge their running for office; the injunction was to force the election board to follow the Constitution on term limits. It is the duty of the election board to remove any candidate seeking a third consecutive term,” Semans said.

“The tribe on the other hand is stating the Constitutional change happened to fast and they did not have time to create the ordinances until now. My argument was Tribal ordinances regardless of excuses, must follow the constitution,” he added.

According to RST Secretary Linda Marshall the two candidates in question are eligible to run for office.

“We have a court ruling that because the constitutional amendments were not approved until the election process was already proceeding, the approval was not retroactive,” Marshall said. “The amendments affecting the elections did not affect the 2007 election however they did take effect in the 2009 election.”

Semans counters that in 2009 there was an election case in tribal court and the decision clarifying the term limits was decided and upheld by the Rosebud Supreme Court. That case confirmed that the effective date of the changes was September 20, 2007, and that the tribal court has jurisdiction over election disputes of a constitutional nature.

“On July 13, 2009 all five members of the Rosebud Election Board sent out a memo which confirmed that the term limit change was effective on September 20, 2007 and as the Election Board stated: ‘applies from that date forward.’ The Rosebud primary election for Council Representatives is scheduled for July 28, 2011. The Election Board disregarded its previous position and our constitution and certified candidates who have been sworn in and served two consecutive terms after September 20, 2007,” Semans said.

A hearing was held on July 27 and the temporary injunction was denied. According to the ruling, “The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate grounds for temporary injunctive relief...because he has failed to demonstrate that he lacks an alternative remedy at law because he has standing to file a challenge to both candidates’ eligibility with the Election Board.” 

“The court notes that the relief being requested is a stop to a primary election because two of the candidates alleged ineligiblity. The courts notes that there is an alternative remedy at law available. The plaintiff apparently has not availed himself of that remedy.”

(Contact Ernestine Chasing Hawk at editor@nsweekly.com)