Courtroom sketch of Patrick Henry Lambert (Appellant) v. Board of Elections of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (Appellee) on the morning of July 10. (BROOKLYN BROWN/One Feather art)
By BROOKLYN BROWN
One Feather Reporter
CHEROKEE, N.C. – On the morning of July 10 in Cherokee Tribal Court, the Cherokee Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Cherokee Board of Elections to disqualify Patrick Henry Lambert from candidacy in the 2025 Tsisqwohi (Birdtown) Dinilawigi (Tribal Council) election.
Lambert, who was impeached from his position as Principal Chief of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) in 2017, filed for candidacy for the 2025 Tsisqwohi (Birdtown) Dinilawigi (Tribal Council) election. The Board would find Lambert ineligible for candidacy based on his 2017 impeachment as stated in the appellee brief, “It appeared to the Board that Mr. Lambert would be ineligible to be a candidate due to his previous impeachment and removal from Tribal office in 2017 (Resolution No. 596 (2017)).”
The Board ordered a hearing as is required by Cherokee Code Sec. 161-4(e). The hearing was conducted on June 10 at 2p.m. in the Ginger Lynn Welch Large Conference Room, wherein Lambert represented himself. The Board subsequently denied Lambert’s certification as a candidate with a unanimous vote on June 12, releasing the final written decision on June 17.
Lambert then filed an appeal through Cherokee Supreme Court, prompting an expedited hearing on July 10.
At 10a.m. on July 10 in Cherokee Tribal Court, the Cherokee Supreme Court presided with Chief Justice Bradley B. Letts, Associate Justice Sharon Tracey Barrett, and Associate Justice Robert C. Hunter, on the matter of Patrick Henry Lambert (Appellant) v. Board of Elections of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (Appellee). Letts announced that the oral argument time limit would be extended from thirty minutes to forty-five minutes.
Lambert, representing himself, opened the oral arguments as the appellant. Lambert presented five arguments as detailed in the appellant brief:
“I. For the whole of its history the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians has set its election qualifications in its foundational governing documents
- The Charter and Governing Document is the supreme law of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and may not be abridged
III. The Board of Elections ignored its own precedent and erred as a matter of law by failing to apply the Charter and Governing Document to this case
IV. Tribal Council has a duty to make law consistent with the Charter and Governing Document and has empowered the Supreme Court to say when a Tribal law violates the Charter
- Tribal Council’s disqualification provision found in C.C. § 161-3(d)(3) is ultra vires as the Charter and Governing Document does not grant this power to Tribal Council”
Lambert stated in his opening, “I am Patrick Henry Lambert, appearing pro se to challenge the Board of Elections’ unlawful denial of my candidacy for the Birdtown Tribal Council seat. This case is not about the 2017 impeachment. It’s about one question: Will this court uphold the Charter as the supreme law of the EBCI, or allow Tribal Council to impose unauthorized qualifications that silence the voters’ right to choose their leaders?”
Lambert said C.C. Sec. 161-3(d)(3) is a violation of section 9 of the Charter. C.C. Sec. 161-3(d)(3) reads, “No person shall ever be eligible to run for or serve in any of the above Tribal Offices, if: …
(3)
The person has been impeached and removed by the Tribal Council from any elected office or appointed office, for having violated his or her oath of office or being guilty of any offense making the person ineligible to hold said office; or…”
Charter Section 9 reads,
“In order to run for or serve as Principal Chief, Vice-Chief or Tribal Council member, a candidate must be an enrolled member of the Eastern Band. For the offices of Chief and Vice-Chief a candidate must also be at least thirty-five years of age by the date of the election and have resided on Cherokee trust lands continuously for at least two years immediately preceding the date of the election. For the Tribal Council a candidate must be at least eighteen years of age by the date of election and have resided in the township which he is to represent for at least ninety days immediately preceding the date of the election.”
Lambert stated, “Cherokee Code Section 161-3(d)(3) violates Charter Section 9’s exclusive criteria: enrollment, age, and residency, all of which I indisputably meet. This is not just about my candidacy, it’s about protecting the voice of every Cherokee voter. I ask this court to reverse the Board’s error, declare Cherokee Code Section 161-3(d)(3) void, and certify my candidacy, ensuring that the peoples’ will prevails.”
Lambert also highlighted Charter Section 22 on impeachment which reads, “Any officer of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians who violates his oath of office, or is guilty of any offense making him ineligible to hold said office may be impeached by a two-thirds vote of council.” Lambert argued that section 22 is silent on barring future candidacy.
In discussing Charter Section 6, which reads, “The Tribal Council shall establish a Board of Elections and enact election rules and regulations for the conduct of tribal elections. Election for Principal Chief and Vice-Chief must be by a majority of at-large votes cast by eligible voters,” Lambert argued that “conduct of tribal elections” refers to “procedural and administrative matters, not substantive candidate qualifications,” citing lex specialis derogat legi generali, meaning specific law overrides general law.
Attorney Craig Jacobson of Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker, LLP, represented the appellee, the Cherokee Board of Elections. Jacobson presented six arguments, as stated in the appellee brief:
“I. C.C. § 161-3(d)(3) HAS BEEN PART OF THE ELECTION ORDINANCE SINCE 1997 AND HAS REMAINED RELATIVELY UNCHANGED.
Il. THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE LAW AND DID NOT MAKE AN ERROR OF LAW.
III.THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO AMEND OR IGNORE C.C. § 161-3(d)(3).
- C.C. § 161-3(d)(3) DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CHARTER AND GOVERNING DOCUMENT.
V. THE CHARTER DOES NOT EXPRESS HOW IT CAN BE AMENDED, BUT TRIBAL COUNCIL HAS EXERCISED ITS AUTHORITY AND HAS PASSED AN ORDINANCE ON AMENDING THE CHARTER - ALL OTHER ISSUES ARE NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT.”
In his opening, Jacobson stated, “In reading and hearing Mr. Lambert’s arguments, we do share a central starting point that the EBCI Charter and Governing Document is the supreme law of the land for the tribe, but from there our paths diverge in the legal woods. Mr. Lambert presents a confusing and at times inconsistent description of the different powers within the EBCI tribal government…”
Jacobson goes on to discuss his opinion of the function of the EBCI Charter and Governing Document, “Is the tribe limited to its enumerated powers, or is there a way in which the document is a living and breathing document that allows for regulations and enactments of law to carry out the spirit of it? In reading the Charter, and in looking at all of the provisions of it and the way in which it matches up with how the tribe regulates itself through ordinances, I would say the EBCI Charter and the way it was drafted is a little bit of both. It has some enumerated powers but its not limited to those enumerated powers.”
Jacobson cited Section 16 of the Charter regarding property inheritance. Jacobson argued that Cherokee Code Chapter 28 – Inheritance and Chapter 28A – Administration of Decendent’s Estates are examples of provisions enlisted by Tribal Council that are not present in the Charter. Justice Barrett challenged Jacobson’s argument by stating that Section 16 starts out with giving Tribal Council power to “direct the management and control of all property, either real or personal, belonging to the Tribe,” whereas the same power is not given to Tribal Council regarding candidate eligibility.
Jacobson presented the concern of the appellee, “The concern that we would have is that if the court rules in Mr. Lambert’s favor, that says if the charter touches on a topic and it provides some authority in the charter, there is no authority for anyone to come in and supplement that authority by ordinance or other tribal law,” he said.
“Our interpretation of this is, and I think its correct, is that the charter establishes a floor but not a ceiling.”
Justice Barrett responded to Jacobson’s analogy, “You would have us affirm the Board of Elections, disqualify [Lambert] because of this Tribal Council added qualification, and say, ‘It’s above the floor,’ but you give us no guidance on how we pronounce that such that people know where the ceiling is,” going on to list the potential for imposed candidacy qualifications, like incumbency or education requirements, based on Jacobson’s interpretation.
As the appellant, Lambert was able to present a closing argument, his final words being, “The voters, not Tribal Council or the Board, should be allowed to decide my candidacy. So, as guardians of the tribe’s democracy, you hold the power to ensure that the voters’ voice prevails.”
In the Cherokee Supreme Court order announcing the reversal of the Board of Elections decision to deny Lambert’s candidacy, the justices outlined that the Board of Elections would conduct a primary election for Tsisqwohi (Birdtown). The primary election is scheduled for Thursday, July 17, from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. at the Birdtown Community Building.
