A closer look at the IRA, the 1935 Northern Cheyenne Constitution, the 1960 amendments, oral history, and questions still shaping government today
By Steven Bullcoming Haworth
Truth in Focus | Analysis | Tribal Government | September 19, 2026
I started looking more closely at Northern Cheyenne government because I was trying to understand the Indian Reorganization Act. What surprised me was how quickly one question turned into another. The more I listened to people in the community and compared those conversations with the written record, the harder it became to treat 1934 or 1935 as the beginning of the story.
The Doctrine of Discovery pushed me backward. Federal Indian policy developed over generations through colonial claims, treaties, reservation policy, assimilation and allotment. Indian Affairs says tribal landholdings fell from about 138 million acres before the Dawes Act to about 48 million acres by 1934. The Indian Reorganization Act then ended further allotment and marked a major federal policy shift toward tribal reorganization and self-government.[1]
For the Northern Cheyenne Nation, the next major date is 1935, when the Tribe adopted a written Constitution under the IRA framework. But Cheyenne government did not begin with that document. Northern Cheyenne educational materials describe a traditional system governed through the Council of Forty-Four and other societies, with law and leadership that existed long before the federal constitutional structure.[2]
That is where the first question becomes important: what happened to those traditional governing ways after 1935? My coursework at Chief Dull Knife College helped push that question forward, but community conversations made it more immediate. People were not just talking about history. They were talking about how older forms of authority relate to the government that exists today.
Then several people told me the Constitution had been amended in 1960. At first, I had trouble finding much public discussion explaining what happened. We kept looking, and the constitutional record confirmed that the original 1935 document was amended in 1960 and again in 1996.[3]
The 1960 amendment is especially interesting because it is real, documented and still not something I hear discussed very often. Montana Office of Public Instruction materials say the original Constitution provided roughly one council representative for every 100 tribal members, while the 1960 amendment changed that to one representative for every 200. That may sound technical, but representation changes the size and structure of government.[4]
The same OPI resource records another piece of the story that I had heard through community discussion: within Northern Cheyenne oral history, the Constitution was understood to have a 50-year trial period before being evaluated to determine whether it was meeting the Tribe’s needs. Fifty years after 1935 would be 1985.[4]
That oral-history account is not the same thing as a written constitutional clause, and it should not be reported as one. But it should not be dismissed simply because it was carried orally. Indigenous history is not limited to government files. Elders, families, language, ceremonies and community memory can preserve understandings that are not always written into statutes or constitutions.
That matters because oral history can be lost. Elders will not be here forever, and younger generations cannot preserve knowledge they were never taught. One of the questions this reporting now raises is how Northern Cheyenne oral histories about government, law and the 1935 Constitution can be recorded respectfully while the people who carry that knowledge are still able to tell their own stories.
The written Constitution changed again in 1996. The current text records amendments dealing with governmental reform, separation of powers and a code of ethics. Article XI divides governmental power among legislative, executive and judicial branches, while Article X sets out a process for future constitutional amendments through tribal voters.[3]
That history matters because the current governmental dispute has forced questions about authority into the open. In September 2025, Traditional Chiefs issued a declaration that purported to remove eight elected council members. In an Aug. 18, 2026 ruling, the Northern Cheyenne Trial Court held that the declaration was void under the written constitutional framework and that the special election used to replace the council members had no legal effect. The Traditional Chiefs later sought an appeal.[5][6]
The ruling did not erase traditional law from the conversation. Legal analysis of the decision notes that the court recognized the cultural and political significance of custom and tradition while distinguishing that influence from the exercise of governmental power under the written Constitution.[5]
That distinction is at the center of the question I keep hearing. If traditional law points in one direction and the written Constitution requires another process, how are those systems supposed to work together? Some people I have spoken with who have studied the Constitution believe further reform is needed. That is their position. Whether the Constitution should be amended, and what any amendment should say, is a decision for Northern Cheyenne citizens.
What reporting can do is make the history easier to understand. The Constitution has changed before. It changed in 1960. It changed again in 1996. The current Constitution also contains a formal amendment process, requiring voter approval and allowing the process to be initiated by the Tribal Council or a qualifying petition of tribal voters.[3]
The larger question is therefore not simply whether somebody wants change. It is what problem a proposed change is meant to solve, what earlier generations already tried to address, and how traditional Cheyenne authority would relate to the elected and judicial institutions that operate today.
My connection to this subject is personal. My husband, Corry Bullcoming Haworth, is Northern Cheyenne, and through my marriage I am part of a Northern Cheyenne family. I do not claim to speak for Northern Cheyenne citizens, and I do not get to decide the constitutional question. My responsibility as a writer is to listen carefully, verify what can be verified, distinguish oral history from written law, and make clear where the record still has gaps.
That is also why 1960 deserves more reporting. I want to know exactly what changed, article by article. I want to understand the discussions that led to those changes, how people remembered the 50-year understanding, what the 1996 reformers believed needed to be corrected, and how those earlier choices connect to the dispute happening now.
The more I research this, the less history looks like a list of dates. The Doctrine of Discovery led to later federal policy. Allotment helped set the stage for the IRA. The IRA led to the 1935 Constitution. Community conversations led me to the 1960 amendments, and the current dispute led me back to traditional governance and oral history.
Sometimes finding an answer does not close the story. It tells us what we need to investigate next.
Sources and verification
[1] U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs — allotment and Indian Reorganization Act history. Federal Law and Indian Policy Overview
[2] Montana Office of Public Instruction — Northern Cheyenne traditional governance and Council of Forty-Four background. Bringing the Story of the Cheyenne People to the Children of Today
[3] Native American Rights Fund / National Indian Law Library — amended Northern Cheyenne Constitution and Bylaws. Northern Cheyenne Constitution and Bylaws
[4] Montana Office of Public Instruction — 1960 representation change and 50-year oral-history account. Northern Cheyenne social studies curriculum
[5] Turtle Talk — legal analysis of the Aug. 18, 2026 Northern Cheyenne Trial Court decision. Tribal Courts in Action
[6] Buffalo’s Fire — Aug. 25, 2026 reporting on the Traditional Chiefs’ appeal. Legal saga continues for Northern Cheyenne Tribe
Truth in Focus welcomes documents, oral histories, firsthand accounts and additional perspectives that can help clarify the constitutional history of 1935, 1960 and 1996.
truthinfocus@gmail.com | TruthFocus.net
Editor’s note: TruthFocus.net is actively being expanded. Additional archives, newsroom policies and publishing tools are still being added.
© 2026 Steven Bullcoming Haworth. All rights reserved.