This is part of African American history that should be passed to the young people. It's OUR responsibility to teach them the truth.
==========================================================
By Kenneth J. Cooper, Special to the NNPA -
This time it wasn’t even close. After the back-and-forth over who won the June election for principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, a do-over vote has ousted recent incumbent Chad Smith, who led the campaign to expel nearly all Black citizens from the tribe.
Bill John Baker, a longtime member of the tribal congress, defeated Smith 54 percent to 46 percent, with a winning margin of nearly 1,600 votes. Serial counts of the June ballots showed each candidate with a slim lead, causing the Cherokee Supreme Court to declare it was impossible to determine the winner and order a new election.
Smith, who was chief for 12 years, promoted a 2007 referendum that stripped tribal citizenship from descendants of the Cherokee freedmen, the tribe’s former slaves who were guaranteed “all the rights of native Cherokees” under a post-Civil War treaty. So were their descendants.
Freedmen descendants rallied to Baker, even though the Oklahoma businessman did not directly side with their cause in his campaign. He did vow to abide by the decision on freedmen rights by the court with final jurisdiction, a subtle reference to the federal court in Washington where a case is pending. Freedmen expect the U.S. District Court to uphold their rights because it has already recognized the validity of the 1866 treaty, whose language is unambiguous.
About 1,200 freedmen enrolled in the tribe were able to vote in both elections only because of federal pressure. After members of the Congressional Black Caucus pushed for a cutoff of government funding, the tribal government led by Smith let freedmen retain citizenship rights while lawsuits were pending in federal and tribal courts.
The Cherokee Supreme Court, packed with Smith appointees, revoked those rights before the revote. It was a clear maneuver to swing the outcome Smith’s way.
But the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced it would withhold about $30 million in funds and the Interior Department declared it would only recognize the second election if freedmen were allowed to vote. The Obama administration stepped up—and in the right direction—despite the equivocal statement Barack Obama had made during the 2008 campaign.
Faced with the funding loss and possible federal de-recognition, the interim tribal government moonwalked and reached an agreement, approved by the federal court, allowing eligible freedmen to vote and giving them additional time to do so because they would get absentee ballots later. The replay election was scheduled for Sept. 24 but voting was extended to Oct. 8.
The interim government could not leave the fair settlement alone, though. Cherokee officials decided all eligible voters could cast ballots during the extending voting period, so freedmen would not enjoy “special rights.” Smith and Baker endorsed that move, a bit of unworthy political posturing by both candidates.
To say freedmen would have “special rights” because they would get the same amount of time to vote as blood Cherokees was preposterous. Blood Cherokees wound up having more time to vote than freedmen did.
There was one last gambit to save Smith from defeat, foreshadowed by a partial, unofficial count that showed him trailing Baker in a potential landslide. Hours before the tribal election commission announced the certified results on Wednesday, Smith appointees on the Cherokee Supreme Court overruled the agreement allowing freedmen to participate in the election.
Even the Cherokee attorney general, a Smith appointee, had the legal sense to know that ruling was a nonstarter. “Although our Cherokee Supreme Court is our highest court, it cannot set aside a federal court order,” Dianne Hammons said. She called the negotiated agreement “a valid court order, binding upon the parties” unless overturned by another federal court.
Smith, a lawyer whose convoluted arguments seemed to belie his legal training, has made concessionary, valedictory remarks while leaving his options open. He could seek and pay for a recount, which should seem pointless even to him.
“As you can see, the count is in, and it’s been a very long campaign,” the Tahlequah (OK) Daily Press quoted him as saying. “I’m very happy and fortunate to have served the Cherokee Nation and its people for 12 years. I would like to continue, but unfortunately, that did not happen.”
Turnout went up a third from the first election: the number of ballots cast jumped to about 20,000 from 15,000. Monitors from the Carter Center in Atlanta—accustomed to being deployed in developing countries—observed the election.
From the outcome, the voters who turned this time but not the last were dominated by blood Cherokees embarrassed that their tribal government appeared unable to hold a fair election, conduct an accurate count of ballots or refused to abide by a treaty like “the white man” did repeatedly during the westward expansion of the United States. Others may have been dismayed the tribe looked racist in the 21st century or stood to lose housing and other federal funds that help Cherokees enduring financial hard times.
As Baker acknowledged, freedmen voters could not have determined the outcome. Only 1,200 were eligible to vote, fewer than his victory margin of 1,600.
The chief-elect held out hope of a political reconciliation with freedmen and disaffected blood Cherokees.
“It’s time for the healing to begin,” Baker said, according to the Tahlequah paper. “It’s been a long, hard road, and a long battle that was hard-fought.
The timing of Baker’s installation is unclear. He will join in the new government with Joe Crittenden, his running-mate as deputy chief who has been serving as acting chief since August. Crittenden’s victory in a runoff was a sign that the political winds were shifting against Smith.
The Cherokee Freedmen have been battling for their tribal rights for more than 140 years, since within a year of the signing of the 1866 treaty. A political resolution within the Cherokee Nation would be best, to respect its sovereignty and heal the wounds. But no internal settlement has ever held.
The Obama administration has spoken, even if President Obama has remained silent on the issue. Now the federal courts need to move with dispatch to assure a permanent resolution—finally.
Kenneth J. Cooper, a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist, is a freelancer based in Boston. He also edits the Trotter Review at the University of Massachusetts-Boston.
••••://•••.flcourier.com/flnation/6729-an-election-victory-for-the-cherokee-freedmen