TRUTH IN FOCUS
By Steven Bullcoming Haworth, MPA, B.S.
In Part One, we asked a basic question: Who has the power? Part Two asks the next question. If Northern Cheyenne citizens believe elected leaders have failed them, what can the people actually do under the Constitution?
That question sounds simple. The answer is not.
The Northern Cheyenne Constitution contains several different processes that can easily be confused with one another: removal from office, referendum, constitutional amendment, and elections. They are not interchangeable. A petition can be politically powerful without automatically being a legal recall petition.
Article VII deals specifically with removal from office. It 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. Complaints against the President, a Council member, or Council officer must be written and sworn. Article VII also provides for forfeiture of office following certain criminal convictions.
That creates an obvious accountability question:
What happens when the people asking for accountability believe the Tribal Council itself is the problem?
Article VIII gives tribal members referendum power. A petition signed by at least 10 percent of registered voters from each of the five districts can demand a referendum on certain proposed or enacted Tribal Council ordinances or resolutions. If at least 30 percent of eligible voters participate, the majority vote is binding on the Council.
But that is not the same thing as recall.
The Constitution does not appear to contain a general provision saying that collecting 10 percent of signatures automatically removes a President or Council member. The 10-percent provision belongs to the referendum article. Removal has its own procedure under Article VII.
There is another path if tribal members believe the Constitution itself needs to change. Article X says a constitutional-amendment election can be initiated by a two-thirds request of the Tribal Council or by a petition signed by one-third of qualified tribal voters. The Constitution also sets participation and majority requirements for adoption.
That distinction matters when petitions circulate in the community. Before anyone says a petition will “remove” somebody, the first question should be:
What legal power is this petition actually invoking?
Is it asking for a referendum? Is it proposing a constitutional amendment? Is it asking the Council to begin Article VII removal proceedings? Or is it primarily a political statement demanding action?
Without seeing the exact petition language, those questions cannot responsibly be answered.
The current court fight shows why these distinctions matter.
In September 2025, Traditional Chiefs issued a declaration calling for the removal of eight elected Tribal Council representatives amid allegations of corruption. A special election followed, and litigation over the Chiefs’ authority continued. The dispute forced the Tribal Courts to confront a difficult question: whether traditional authority could remove elected officials outside the procedures established by the written Constitution.
On August 18, 2026, the Northern Cheyenne Trial Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the previously elected council members. According to public reporting on the court proceedings, the court held that the Chiefs’ Declaration and the resulting election were void and had no legal effect.
That did not end the dispute.
On August 21, Traditional Chiefs Larry Medicine Bull, Wesley Spotted Elk, and Roger Killsnight sought another appeal and requested that the August 18 order be stayed while appellate review continued. Attorneys for the reinstated council members opposed the stay, arguing that continued uncertainty could affect the 2026 election, federal funding, essential services, and Northern Cheyenne Tribal Schools.
As of our latest review, Truth in Focus had not located a newer publicly reported decision resolving that appeal or stay request.
There is an important principle underneath all of this.
Traditional authority deserves respect. So does the written Constitution adopted by the people. Those two things do not have to be treated as enemies.
But when they conflict, a government needs a clear method for deciding which authority controls.
That may be one of the lessons of this entire crisis. If citizens believe their elected government has become unaccountable, but the Constitution places removal authority largely inside that same elected government, frustration is understandable.
At the same time, creating an alternative removal process outside the Constitution creates another problem:
Who decides when that alternative authority applies, and what prevents it from being abused in the future?
Good constitutional systems do not depend upon trusting the right people.
They create rules that still work when people do not trust one another.
That is why this conversation cannot end with deciding who won one court case.
The larger question is whether Northern Cheyenne citizens have strong enough tools to hold their government accountable without throwing the government itself into uncertainty every time a serious dispute occurs.
In Part Three, we will look forward instead of backward.
What could change?
Recall elections. Independent ethics oversight. Greater access to governmental and financial records. Clearer removal procedures. And perhaps a clearly defined constitutional relationship between traditional leadership and elected government.
Those are not answers Truth in Focus can impose.
They are questions Northern Cheyenne citizens themselves may ultimately have to answer.
Look at the record. Follow the money. Ask the questions.
Sources
Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Amended Constitution and Bylaws, Articles VII, VIII and X.
Buffalo’s Fire, coverage of the Northern Cheyenne constitutional and court dispute, August 2026.
Buffalo’s Fire, Legal Saga Continues for Northern Cheyenne Tribe, August 25, 2026.
© 2026 Bullcoming Enterprises. All rights reserved.
#TruthInFocus #NorthernCheyenne #NorthernCheyenneTribe #TribalGovernment #TribalSovereignty #GovernmentAccountability #Accountability #Transparency #TribalConstitution #IndianCountry #Montana #FollowTheMoney #LookAtTheRecord #AskTheQuestions