Native American Press/Ojibwe News

“Rule of law” comes to Leech Lake reservation, maybe

March 14, 2003
On Thursday, March 13th, Leech Lake secretary/treasurer Archie LaRose got nine hours before a tribal court judge, and at least a taste of “due process” in the recall petition dispute between LaRose and some other members of the Leech Lake RBC.

The question before the court was the validity of disputed signatures on a recall petition, which according to the MCT Constitution must be signatures of “eligible resident voters.” After a long day of hearing legal arguments, evidence, and testimony, tribal court judge B.J. Jones continued the hearings until March 21st.

The jurisdiction of the tribal court in the recall petition controversy was sharply limited by judge Jones, who has taken relatively narrow jurisdiction of the tribal court and has deferred jurisdiction over much of the dispute to the “sovereignty” of the RBC.

The first couple of hours of Thursday’s proceedings were taken up with yet another “motion to dismiss” based on RBC attorney Zenas Baer’s arguments that the tribal court did not have any jurisdiction over the case at all. This is an unusual stance for Baer to take, because he has a long history of supporting the expansion of the role of tribal courts and their jurisdiction.

Despite the very narrow grounds on which the court assumed jurisdiction, at least a precedent has been established giving the tribal court jurisdiction over some aspects of tribal governance, and disputes between tribal council members can (at least sometimes) be settled where they should be, in tribal court, rather than out on the street.

There are hopes now, that as we move from this first step, that we can hold tribal officials accountable, in at least some court of law.

Obviously there is a long ways to go in making the tribal courts competent and accessible, and not everyone can afford attorneys as good as Baer and Thompson, or for that matter afford attorneys at all.

But, hopefully Thursday’s hearing is a real start, not just a one-shot deal or an aberration.

But, the case also made it painfully obvious that there are very serious problems with the MCT Constitution.

The position of most MCT tribal members is that their tribal courts should not exist at all, because these courts are not authorized by the tribal constitution and therefore are, ultimately, illegal courts. There is a real problem here, and it’s become obvious in this Leech Lake dispute that the system is terribly flawed.

As things stand now, the only way in which tribal members can hold their elected officials accountable is through removal, which doesn’t solve the underlying structural problems. Although the threat of removal can be used to hold tribal accountable, its overuse just creates turnover among tribal officials and turmoil in tribal government. The problems which plague Indian tribal government are not going to be solved without major structural change in the organization mandated by the tribal constitution.

The most important message from the tribal court’s proceedings in this case is that there is an urgent need for constitutional reform in the MCT.

In spite of all the limitations, I think that Leech Lakers can be proud of the very professional proceedings last Thursday. We had, in my opinion, the two best Indian-issue lawyers in the state, battling it before an Indian tribal judge

Return to home page