THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MOHEGAN TRIBE, ARTICLE VII-VOTING SECTION 2 "In each tribal election, every registered voting member SHALL BE ENTITLED to cast one vote for each elective position available."
THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE COMPLAINTS. EACH CASE INVOLVES THE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE VII- VOTING SECTION 2 THE REASONS FOR THE COMPLAINTS ARE DIFFERENT AND THE REMEDIES ARE DIFFERENT.
I WILL TRY TO EXPLAIN THEIR POSITIONS AS BEST I CAN,HOPEFULLY I WILL GET IT RIGHT.
THE FIRST CASE INVOLVES TRIBAL MEMBER KEN DAVISON. HE DELIBERATELY DID NOT VOTE FOR THE FOUR POSITIONS WHICH HE HAD TO DO AT THIS LAST COUNCIL OF ELDERS ELECTION, TO HAVE HIS BALLOT COUNTED. HIS COMPLAINT IS THAT THE ELECTION ORDINANCE WHICH USES THE WORD "REQUIRED" VIOLATES THE INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH USES THE WORDS "SHALL BE ENTITLED." HE IS NOT ARGUING WHETHER THE ORDINANCE IS FAIR OR RIGHT, BUT HE IS SEEKING A CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION ON THE WORDING IN THE ORDINANCE AND THE WORDING IN THE CONSTITUTION. IN OTHER WORDS HE WANTS A DECISION ON WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS ACTUALLY SAYING. I AM NOT QUITE SURE WHAT HE WANTS FOR A JUDGEMENT..
THE SECOND CASE THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, IS BEING BROUGHT BY TOM EPPS "THROWS HIS HATCHET." FIRST HE FEELS THAT THE ORDINANCE VIOLATES HIS RIGHT OF CHOICE, IT IS FORCING HIM TO DO SOMETHING (VOTE) FOR SOMEONE HE DOES NOT WANT TO. HE FEELS IN OTHER PLACES HE WOULD NOT HAVE TO VOTE THE ENTIRE FOUR POSITIONS OPEN TO HAVE IS VOTE COUNTED, ETC. THE SECOND ISSUE HE HAS IS THAT WHEN HE WENT TO PUT HIS BALLOT IN THE BALLOT BOX ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON THE GOVERNMENT BUILDING WAS CLOSED. HE MAILED IN HIS BALLOT BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE IT ARRIVED IN TIME TO BE COUNTED. THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUTTING IN YOUR BALLOT STATED IT HAD TO BE RECEIVED IN THE MAIL BY 4:30 P.M. ON FRIDAY OR PUT IN THE BALLOT BOX BY 4:30 P.M. ON FRIDAY. BY THE GOVERNMENT BUILDING BEING CLOSED HE WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO VOTE. I BELIEVE HE WANTS THE LAW CHANGED AND A NEW ELECTION.
THE HEARING IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY AT 4:30 P.M. I WILL UPDATE MY READERS, AS SOON AS THE THERE IS A DEFINITE TIME. PLEASE COME AND OBSERVE YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK.
EDITORIAL FOOTNOTE: I DO NOT THINK A NEW ELECTION IS ADVISABLE BECAUSE OF TWO FACTORS. 1) IN THE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III-JURISDICTION SECTION 5 MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL OF ELDERS SHALL BE HELD AND CONDUCTED AS FOLLOWS: (B) "FIVE (5) MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF ELDERS THEN IN OFFICE SHALL CONSTITUTE A QUORUM FOR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY TRIBAL BUSINESS, AND A MAJORITY OF A QUORUM MAY MAKE DECISIONS EXCEPT FOR THOSE REQUIRING A HIGHER VOTE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION." IF A NEW VOTE WAS NOT COMPLETED AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2008 THERE WOULD BE NO QUORUM AND THEREFORE NO WORK COULD BE DONE BY THE COUNCIL OF ELDERS. 2) IF THERE WERE A RECOUNT, THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH VOTES (9) TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FOURTH AND FIFTH PLACE VOTE GETTER'S TO CHANGE THE ELECTION.
