Mayes v. Cherokee Nation Election Commission, (2013)

• Decision Date: 19 April 2013
• Docket Number: SC-13-06
• Citation: Mayes v. Cherokee Nation Election Commission (Judicial App. Tribunal Ct. Cherokee Nation 2013)
• Parties: ROBIN MAYES, PETITIONER, v. CHEROKEE NATION ELECTION COMMISSION, AND MEREDITH FRAILEY, DON GARVIN, DAVID THORNTON, JACK BAKER, CURTIS SNELL, AND CHARLES HOSKINS, JR., RESPONDENTS.
• Court: Judicial App Tribunal Court Cherokee Nation

ROBIN MAYES, PETITIONER, v. CHEROKEE NATION ELECTION COMMISSION, AND MEREDITH FRAILEY, DON GARVIN, DAVID THORNTON, JACK BAKER, CURTIS SNELL, AND CHARLES HOSKINS, JR., RESPONDENTS.

No. SC-13-06

Supreme Court of the Cherokee Nation

April 19, 2013

The Petitioner appeared in person and by A.J. Garcia, his attorney.The Respondent Cherokee Nation Election Commission appeared through Bill Horton, Commission Chairman and by Harvey L. Chaffin, their attorney.The RespondentMeredith Frailey appeared in person and by James J. Proszek, Hall Estill, Hardwick, Gable and Nelson, PC, Tulsa, Oklahoma.The RespondentsDon Garvin and Jack Baker appear in person and by Chadwick Smith, their attorney.The RespondentDavid Thornton appeared in person and by Lloyd Cole, his attorney.The RespondentCurtis Snell appeared in person and by Charles Hoskins, Jr., his attorney.The RespondentCharles Hoskins Jr., appeared in person pro se.

Darrell Dowty, Chief Justice, James G. Wilcoxen, Justice Troy Wayne Poteete, Justice, John C. Garrett, Justice, Angela Hones, Justice

On the 15th day of April, 2013, hearing was had upon the timely challenge of PetitionerRobin Mayes to the eligibility of certain candidates for offices on the Cherokee Nation Council.Said hearing was scheduled by the Court pursuant to the accelerated requirements of the provisions of LA-06-10, Title 26 CNCA §37(3).

At the outset of the hearing, the Court entered the following findings and orders in open Court:

1) That the Petitioner's Motion to Disqualify unnamed Justices was denied.

2) That the Petitioner's pending Motion for Continuance was denied.

3) That the Petitioner's Motion to Disqualify attorneys Hoskins, Jr. and Smith was denied.

4) The Petitioner's Motion to Strike Responses was denied.

5) That the issues raised in the Petitioner's Petition regarding the Election Commission's declining to consider the issue of delay in processing of Freedmen applications to vote was not properly before the Court pursuant to LA-06-10, Title 26 CNCA §(1).

6) That the issue raised in the Petitioner's Petition and pleadings regarding the Election Commission's failure to consider the method used by the Election Commission to collect background information; delay in certification of elections, and alleged error in the method of designating election poll watchers; was not properly before the Court pursuant to LA-06-10, Title 26 CNCA §(1).

WHEREUPON, the Court proceeded to hear testimony, receive evidence and consider the argument of counsel upon the remaining issues raised in the Petitioner's Petition, to-wit:

a) Whether the Election Commission erred by finding candidates Frailey, Garvin and Thornton had not exceeded the two-term limits established by Article VI, §3, Constitution of the Cherokee Nation (1999);

b) Whether the Election Commission erred by finding that candidates Frailey, Garvin, Thornton, Baker, Snell and Hoskins, Jr. had not exceeded their four-year terms established by Article VI, §3, Constitution of the Cherokee Nation (1999); and

c) Petitioner's challenge to his own eligibility and candidacy upon the grounds that he would be a candidate for a de-facto office inasmuch as the Constitution of the Cherokee Nation of 1999 has not received approval from the federal government.

This Court, having reviewed the Petition, written authority argument and all responsive pleadings and briefs in opposition thereto, having considered the evidence and testimony presented in open Court, and having deliberated thereon, made its findings and pronouncement in open C...