12 Am. Tribal Law 55
Navajo Nation Supreme Court2014Background
- In the 2014 Navajo Nation primary, Christopher C. Deschene and Joe Shirley, Jr. were the top two presidential candidates; NEA had certified Deschene as eligible before the primary.
- Appellants (other candidates) filed post-election OHA complaints within 10 days of the primary alleging Deschene filed a false sworn statement that he “fluently speak[s] and understand[s] Navajo,” violating 11 N.N.C. § 21(B)(2) and § 8(A)(4).
- OHA dismissed the complaints as untimely under 11 N.N.C. § 24(A), reasoning the 10-day challenge period after NEA certification had expired months earlier.
- The Court reviewed whether the complaints challenged NEA’s facial certification (governed by § 24(A)) or alleged an Election Code violation (governed by § 341(A)(1)), and whether the Navajo-fluency requirement is a reasonable restriction on candidacy.
- The Court reversed OHA, holding the complaints allege a false-attestation violation under § 21(B)(2) and are properly adjudicated under § 341(A)(1); it also held the Navajo-fluency requirement is a reasonable qualification tied to collective interests in preserving the Navajo language.
- The Court remanded to OHA to determine on the merits whether Deschene’s candidacy should be disqualified, and adopted a Navajo-language–based standard for “fluently.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OHA properly dismissed complaints as untimely under 11 N.N.C. § 24(A) | Appellants: complaints allege a false attestation (§ 21(B)(2)) — a substantive Election Code violation reviewable under § 341(A)(1), not a facial certification challenge under § 24(A) | Deschene: challenges were untimely because NEA certified him and § 24(A)’s 10‑day challenge period expired; alternatively, Appellants knew earlier and failed to file within § 341(A)(1)’s 10 days | Court: OHA erred; jurisdiction under § 341(A)(1) is proper and Appellants’ post‑election challenges are timely given the honor‑system attestation context and statutory developments |
| Whether the Navajo‑language fluency requirement is vague or unconstitutional as a limit on political liberty | Deschene: requirement is vague/subjective and discriminates against younger/educated Navajos; election results should control | Appellants/Court: law is a valid statutory qualification tied to preserving Navajo language and self‑governance; reasonable restriction on candidacy | Court: § 8(A)(4) is clear, reasonable, and advances an important governmental interest (language preservation); requirement stands |
| What standard defines “fluently speak and understand Navajo” | Appellants proposed a specific Navajo‑language functional standard (speech, analysis, comprehension) | Deschene contested clarity and applicability | Court: adopts a Navajo-language functional standard focusing on ability to discuss, analyze, respond, and comprehend substance in Navajo; OHA to apply it on remand |
| Proper forum and remedy for alleged false attestation | Appellants: OHA should adjudicate and can disqualify candidate under § 341 | Deschene: NEA certification and popular vote make disqualification inappropriate | Court: OHA has sole authority to determine disqualification under § 341; remanded for hearing to decide whether Deschene filed a false statement and meets fluency requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- None (opinion primarily cites tribal‑court decisions published in tribal reporters rather than official reporters).