--- Am. Tribal Law ----, 2020 WL 769584 (Cherokee Sup.Ct.)
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
Supreme Court of the Cherokee Nation.
Lynn WILSON, Roger Johnson, Carla Porter, William Pearson, Charles Dale Hornbuckle, Ronnette Patterson, James Wade Prater, Norman Crowe and Phillip Viles, Petitioners,
v.
CHEROKEE NATION ELECTION COMMISSION, Respondent.
Case No. SC 2019-12
|
FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2020

OPINION OF THE COURT
*1 NOW ON THIS 10th day of February. 2020, this matter came on for consideration brought by Lynn Wilson, Roger Johnson, Carla Porter, William Pearson, Charles Dale Hornbuckle, Ronnette Patterson, James Wade Prater, Norman Crowe, and Philip Viles (herein after referred to as “Petitioners”) requesting a Writ of Mandamus to order the Cherokee Nation Election Commission to perform their duties under 26 CNCA § 11.C.12.f. to perform an “Audit all financial reports and disclosures required by this Act” and perform their general duties to ensure compliance with Cherokee Nation Election Law. The Cherokee Nation Constitution, Article VIII, Section 4, gives this Court the power to issue, hear, and determine various writs and specifically provides:
“In support of its original and appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court shall have the power to issue, hear, and determine writs of habeas cuprous, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition and such other remedial writs as may be provided by law and may exercise such other jurisdiction as may be conferred by statute. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall extend to all cases at law and in equity arising under the laws or Constitution of the Cherokee Nation,”

The Cherokee Nation Tribal Council adopted an election code, codified as a part of Cherokee Nation Code Annotated, Title 26. Cherokee Nation law related to elections is contained in that title. This Court has heard numerous cases involving a variety of cases and has rendered opinions on election issues. For example, in Chad Smith v. Cherokee Nation Election Commission and Bill John Baker, SC-15-10, July 13, 2015, this Court addressed a key component of this case, the petition and certain identifying information. The statute, 26 CNCA § 101 D, provides and requires a specific statement of each alleged violation of the election code in force at the time of the alleged violation. The statute also requires the petition to include the date of the alleged violation; the identity of the person or persons involved in the alleged violations and the precinct where the violations occurred. In the Smith case, the Court found that “if these statements are not contained in the Petition or if the allegations do not allege sufficient violations that would affect the outcome of the election, the statute requires the Petition be deemed frivolous and that it be dismissed.”

Title 26 CNCA § 101 D. is clear. If the appeal petition does not contain the required information, or if the allegations do not allege sufficient violations to affect an election outcome, the petition shall be deemed frivolous and is hereby dismissed.

All Citations
--- Am. Tribal Law ----, 2020 WL 769584