TRUTH IN FOCUS
By Steven Bullcoming Haworth, MPA, B.S.
For nearly a year, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe has faced a serious constitutional and political dispute over who has the authority to govern, who can remove elected officials, and what happens when elected government and traditional leadership claim competing authority. Before deciding who is right or wrong, however, there is a more basic question that needs to be answered: What does the Constitution actually say?
The Northern Cheyenne Constitution identifies the Tribal Council as the Tribe’s governing body and gives it substantial legislative authority. The Constitution also divides tribal government into legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The Council exercises legislative power, but that power is not unlimited. The Constitution preserves referendum rights for tribal members and establishes specific procedures for elections, removal from office, constitutional amendments, and governmental ethics. (Native American Rights Fund)
That distinction matters because political dissatisfaction and constitutional authority are not necessarily the same thing. People may believe elected officials should be removed. Citizens may protest, organize petitions, demand records, or call for accountability. Traditional leaders may also believe intervention is necessary. But when someone is actually removed from elected office, the written Constitution establishes a process.
Article VII says an officer or council member who fails to perform assigned duties or is guilty of gross neglect may be removed by a two-thirds vote of the Tribal Council, after being given a fair opportunity to defend themselves. It also requires complaints against the President, Council members, or Council officers to be written and sworn. The Constitution separately provides automatic forfeiture provisions following certain criminal convictions. (Native American Rights Fund)
That is not the same thing as a citizen recall election. Article VIII does contain a powerful referendum provision: a petition signed by at least 10 percent of registered voters from each district can demand a referendum on certain Tribal Council ordinances or resolutions, with the result binding if at least 30 percent of eligible voters participate. Article X provides another route for constitutional change: an amendment election may be requested by two-thirds of the Tribal Council or through a petition signed by one-third of qualified tribal voters. These are important powers, but referendum, constitutional amendment, and removal from office are different legal processes. (Native American Rights Fund)
Those questions became central to the current dispute. In September 2025, Traditional Chiefs issued a declaration seeking the removal of eight elected council representatives amid allegations of corruption. Litigation followed over whether traditional authority could operate outside or override the constitutional process. On August 18, 2026, the Northern Cheyenne Trial Court ruled that the Chiefs’ Declaration and the resulting special election were void and ordered control of Tribal Council offices returned to the previously elected representatives. Three Traditional Chiefs filed an appeal and requested a stay on August 21. The latest public reporting available to Truth in Focus still shows that appellate challenge continuing. (Buffalo’s Fire)
This is why the issue is bigger than individual personalities or political sides. A constitutional crisis can become a services crisis. When there is uncertainty over who legally controls government, that uncertainty can affect elections, federal funding, schools, contracts, government offices, and essential services. Attorneys opposing the requested stay specifically warned the court that continued governmental uncertainty could jeopardize the 2026 election, delay federal funding, impair essential services, and threaten Tribal Schools. (Buffalo’s Fire)
There is also an important historical issue that cannot simply be brushed aside. Northern Cheyenne government and traditional leadership existed long before the modern written Constitution. The question is not whether Northern Cheyenne traditions matter; clearly they do. The harder constitutional question is how traditional authority and the modern written governmental structure are supposed to work together when they appear to conflict. That question deserves respect, evidence, and serious discussion rather than slogans.
Truth in Focus is not arguing that elected leaders should be protected from accountability. The Constitution itself contains a Code of Ethics requiring Tribal officials to act in good faith, prohibiting personal use of Tribal money, property, or personnel, prohibiting concealment or destruction of official records, and prohibiting knowingly improper claims against the Tribe. If public officials misuse authority or public resources, meaningful accountability should follow. (Native American Rights Fund)
But accountability must work in every direction. If the Tribal Council holds substantial constitutional power, the people also need clear and effective ways to hold that government accountable. That raises larger questions: Should the Constitution contain a clearer recall process? Should there be a stronger independent ethics system? Should governmental and financial records be easier for citizens to obtain? And should traditional leadership have a more clearly defined constitutional role when elected government itself is accused of wrongdoing?
Those questions do not weaken tribal sovereignty. They are questions about how sovereignty is exercised and protected.
Before changing a system, however, we first have to understand the system that exists.
Tomorrow: Part Two — Petitions, Removal, and the Court Fight
Look at the record. Follow the money. Ask the questions.
Sources
Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Amended Constitution and Bylaws of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, 1996. (Native American Rights Fund)
Buffalo’s Fire, A Year of Upheaval: The Northern Cheyenne Constitutional Crisis, August 21, 2026. (Buffalo’s Fire)
Buffalo’s Fire, BIA Expected to End Yearlong “Noninterference” Policy After Court Rules Chiefs’ Declaration Void, August 21, 2026. (Buffalo’s Fire)
Buffalo’s Fire, Legal Saga Continues for Northern Cheyenne Tribe, August 25, 2026. (Buffalo’s Fire)
© 2026 Bullcoming Enterprises. All rights reserved.
#TruthInFocus #NorthernCheyenne #NorthernCheyenneTribe #TribalGovernment #TribalSovereignty #GovernmentAccountability #Transparency #Constitution #NativeNews #IndianCountry #Montana #FollowTheMoney #LookAtTheRecord #AskTheQuestions