Judge rules Navajo referendum improperly on ballot

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) – Navajos will see a question of whether to elect judges on the reservation on next week's ballot, but votes on the referendum won't be counted.
Tribal Judge Allen Sloan ruled Thursday that lawmakers erred in not sending the legislation that called for the referendum to the tribal president for his consideration.
Election officials say they're now focused on letting voters know there's no need to check a box indicating whether they would like to switch from a system of appointing judges to an elected one.
Some 5,000 Navajos already have cast ballots ahead of Tuesday's election.
An attorney for tribal President Joe Shirley Jr., Kiersten Murphy, said Sloan's decision ensures that future Navajo leaders can exercise their right to approve or veto proposed referendums as they have done in the past.
“We would hope” that the Board of Election Supervisors and the council would respect the court's decision, she said.
The council supported the referendum as a way to let Navajos decide on the structure of their government and make judges more accountable to the people. Council spokesman Alastair Bitsoi said Thursday's decision was disappointing but likely won't be appealed.
“We know that the Navajo Board of Election Supervisors will do what it can to educate the people on the court's decision and carry on with the election,” he said.
Sloan denied a request from Shirley earlier this month to temporarily keep the question off the ballot. At the time, he questioned why Shirley waited so long to mount a challenge and determined the president would not have suffered irreparable harm if voters decided the matter.
He said the council has a clear authority to place a referendum before voters but whether the Navajo president could weigh in was questionable. The tribe's attorney general and the then-top attorney for the legislative branch had issued conflicting legal opinions.
Shirley appealed to the tribe's high court, but his complaint was dismissed because Sloan had not yet issued a written ruling. The high court ordered Sloan to hold an expedited hearing on whether to permanently block the referendum, which carries less of a burden, and issue an immediate decision.
Had the referendum been approved, all sitting judges and justices would have had to resign in January 2013 and lost their retirement benefits. The referendum also sought to enact set salaries for the elected positions that previously were determined by a council committee based on experience and other criteria.
Critics, including the tribe's Judiciary Branch, contended that electing judges would damage their ability to be impartial in court and ensure that only those with sufficient financial resources would seek office.