Former Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council member and one-time RST presidential candidate Lenard “Shadow” Wright disagrees with the tribal Supreme Court’s interpretation of a 2007 constitutional amendment involving administrative term limits. PHOTO COURTESY/ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE
Rosebud Constitution ignored
Former tribal council rep calls out leaders
By Jesse Abernathy
Native Sun News Editor ROSEBUD — A former Rosebud Sioux Tribe councilor is taking the tribe’s administration to task for taking its time in upholding a 2007 constitutional amendment that places term limits on tribal council offices. Lenard “Shadow” Wright, who represented the Rosebud District on the Rosebud Reservation until the tribe’s most recent election season, says that neither the executive, legislative nor judicial branches of the tribe are much interested in rightfully upholding the now-5-year-old amendment, which restricts the offices of president, vice president, council representatives, secretary, and treasurer to two consecutive terms each. The executive and legislative branches of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe are divided between the president and tribal council, respectively. The term-limit amendment was initially proposed by a tribal-member task force in 2004 at a tribally sponsored constitutional convention. Inexplicably, however, the term-limit provision was not officially incorporated into the tribal constitution until three years later: It was not until July of 2007 that the provision was approved for inclusion in the tribe’s constitution under Article III — Governing Body, Section 2, via a special secretarial election, or referendum, conducted by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs. In September 2007, the term-limit amendment was belatedly added to the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Constitution. And in what could be described as a confusing chain of events, it would be another four years, in 2011, before the amendment was retroactively declared to legally be in full force and effect in 2009. Following the tribe’s primary election July 26, in which Wright made an unsuccessful bid for the office of president, the former tribal council representative filed term-limit challenges with the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Election Board against then-President Rodney Bordeaux, continuing Vice President William “Willie” Kindle and then-representative of Antelope District, Scott Herman. In his formal July 30 challenges, Wright said all three candidates — Bordeaux, Kindle and Scott — had already served at least two consecutive terms each in their respective capacities. Bordeaux was replaced as president by Cyril “Whitey” Scott in the tribe’s general election Aug. 23, while Kindle was re-elected vice president and Scott officially resigned as Antelope District councilor in the wake of the individual public hearings held Aug. 14 by the election board as due process in the matter of Wright’s legal term-limit challenges. Bordeaux had served uninterrupted as president since 2005, which amounts to an unprecedented three terms; Kindle has been vice president since 2007, beginning his third straight term on Sept. 4; and Herman was at the end of his third consecutive term, having represented the Antelope District since 2005. In both June and October of last year, following two separate but similar court cases stemming from individuals seeking an election season injunction related to terms beginning in October of 2007, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Supreme Court retroactively ruled that the constitution’s Sept. 20, 2007, term-limit amendment was not legally in effect until the tribe’s 2009 election. The high court’s ruling also overturned a lower court’s interim August 2011 decision allowing an injunction to bar the tribe’s election board from certifying tribal council candidates who had served two consecutive terms in office just prior to the 2011 election. Citing in its October 2011 written ruling that the 2007 term-limit amendment, which the court referred to as “Amendment F,” specifically failed to state “what election cycle would constitute ‘term one,’ … did not apply to a person in office when (it) was passed,” and would not limit terms for elected officials until after Sept. 20, 2007, the tribe’s Supreme Court ruled in seeming contradiction that the amendment could not be applied “retroactively”: “Taking an oath of office in October 2007 was not an act that occurred in isolation but rather a culmination of the entire elective process that began prior to” the enactment of the amendment, and the beginning of elected officials’ service was the result of “an entire election process that began in June of 2007 … ,” the court wrote in its majority opinion and order. The Supreme Court majority “played with the word ‘term’ and changed the meaning of it” to suit their purposes in handing down the ruling, Wright claims. “The justices actually violated our constitution by making such a statement,” he added. Associate Justice Patrick Donovon disagreed with the majority opinion, particularly on the matter of when a term of office commences. Citing Article III, Section 12 of the constitution, the lone dissenter wrote that a term of office for tribal council members “begins the first business day of the first week following certification (as the majority vote-getter in the general election) by the Tribal Election Board, which may occur before an elected official is sworn into office.” Donovan went on to mildly chastise the election board in his October 2011 dissension: “For future reference, when the tribal Election Board is confronted with an issue of interpretation of tribal law or constitution, they should seek a well reasoned written legal opinion. This would help avoid any confusion for the Election Board and for the people of the tribe who question the procedures and time lines involved in such law and constitutional provisions.” As interpreted under the RST Supreme Court’s concurrent 2011 rulings, former President Bordeaux has served non-consecutively for only one term since Amendment F took legal effect in 2009; Vice President Kindle began his second consecutive term this year; and Herman also has served non-consecutively for only one term. “The Supreme Court’s definition of the amendment is confusing and complex, to say the least,” says Wright. “The court seems to do as it pleases when it comes to making sense of the law.” Wright says the term-limit amendment should’ve taken effect immediately after its incorporation in the tribe’s constitution in 2007. Charles Colombe, a Rosebud Sioux Tribe rancher and former president, agrees with Wright’s contention. The term-limit amendment was part of a series of amendments in 2004 that were “the product of a group called ‘Women for Change,’ and the amendments were truly a grassroots effort,” Colombe told Native Sun News earlier this year. But, “the tribe has yet to really abide by any of the amendments, including the term-limit amendment,” he noted. “The point I’m trying to make is that our Supreme Court takes an oath to protect our constitution — and they failed to do that,” Wright said. “And the reality of it is, as Native Americans, we don’t have the money to protect our civil rights.” Because of the varied, numerous tribal council seats, including 10 district representative spots, as well as several school board positions, the RST now holds a reservation-wide election annually, according to election officials. (Contact Jesse Abernathy at editor@nsweekly.com)
Join the Conversation