Resolution seeks to halt constitution opinion referendum

by Nov 21, 2025NEWS ka-no-he-da0 comments

By SCOTT MCKIE B.P.

One Feather Asst. Editor

 

CHEROKEE, N.C. – During an Annual Dinilawigi (Tribal Council) session on Oct. 21, legislation was passed that approved a referendum regarding opinions on the future of the work being done on a constitution for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI).  Mary Crowe, an elder of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians from Elawodi (Yellowhill), has now submitted a resolution asking that Dinilawigi rescind the legislation approving the referendum.

First, let’s examine the original resolution.

Res. No. 23 (2025) was approved and set a referendum for March 2026 to address the following:

  • Which of the following statements best describes your opinion about changes to the EBCI Charter and Governing Document? (Pick one)
  1. The Charter and Governing Document should be replaced entirely with a new constitution document, as presented by the Constitution Committee, which is voted on by tribal voters.
  2. The Charter and Governing Document should be amended in sections with each amendment, as presented by the Constitution Committee, voted on by tribal voters.

The whereas section of Res. No. 23 states in part, “The EBCI Constitution Committee was charged with evaluating the Charter and Governing Document, potential changes to this document, and how best to address any such changes.”

Res. No. 23 was submitted by EBCI Attorney General Michael McConnell who said prior to the vote on Oct. 21, “There is a question about which direction to go – whether change the Charter bit by bit or do a wholesale repeal and replace. We can talk about the benefits of each, the disadvantages of each, but the resolution itself just asks for the public to weigh in on the question.”

Voting on Res. No. 23 was as follows: For – Dinilawigi Chairman Jim Owle, Dinilawigi Vice Chairman David Wolfe, Wayohi Rep. Bo Crowe, Tutiyi/Tsalagi Gadugi Rep. Adam Wachacha, Tsisqwohi (Birdtown) Rep. Boyd Owle, Tutiyi/Tsalagi Gadugi Rep. Michael Smoker; Against – Aniwodihi Rep. Shannon Swimmer, Aniwodihi Rep. Michael Stamper; Absent – Elawodihi (Yellowhill) Rep. Shennell Feather, Kolanvyi (Big Cove) Rep. Lavita Hill, Kolanvyi Rep. Venita Wolfe, and Wayohi Rep. Mike Parker.

Crowe’s resolution is on the agenda for the Dinilawigi regular session on Dec. 4.  It has not been read into the record yet and does not have an official number.

The whereas section of her legislation states, “The Constitution Committee is mandated by Tribal Council and the first 30 minutes of the meetings are open for public comment and concerns and opinions; and the referendum requires 30 percent of votes cast to be approved and there is not guarantee of approval as well as the cost of a tribal-wide referendum vote would be a waste of funds.”

In the legislation, Crowe also points to the fact that four Dinilawigi representatives were absent for the vote on Oct. 21.

Crowe’s legislation seeks “that Tribal Council rescinds Res. No. 23 (2025) and shall call for a work session with the Constitution Committee as soon as possible or before the next called Constitution Committee meeting.”

Prior to the current referendum legislation, the tribal government expressed concern over the constitution process and language in the proposed constitution, first approving, then rescinding and replacing a referendum question with a resolution to establish a new constitution committee.

Two years ago, Dinilawigi approved Res. No. 559 (2023) which authorized a referendum vote on the entire proposed Constitution.

During the April 6, 2023 Dinilawigi session where that was approved, EBCI Beloved Woman Carmaleta Monteith, who had worked on the proposed Constitution for six years, said she was overjoyed at the decision.  “I think they (Council) understand that governments need constitutions, not business charters, to be the governing document.”

Res. No. 559 was subsequently rescinded with the passage of Res. No. 627 on July 13, 2023.  That legislation removed the referendum question regarding the constitution as well as two others (Res. No. 11 and Res. No. 150) involving staggered terms and term limits.