IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE CHEROKEE NATION PETITION CHALLENGING ELECTION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE CHEROKEE NATION IN THE MATTER OF THE 2011 ) GENERAL ELECTION ) Case No ) PETITION CHALLENGING ELECTION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS Statutory Basis and Requirements COMES NOW, Petitioner, Chadwick Corntassel Smith, and sets forth the following Petition for Appeal and Challenge of the 2011 Special Election, pursuant to Article 5, Sections 101 et.seq., of Title 26 of the Cherokee Nation Code Annotated. Whereas, the Petitioner s name is Chadwick Corntassel Smith. Whereas the Petitioner s address is P.O. Box 275, Park Hill, Oklahoma Whereas the Petitioner s Cherokee Registration Number is 70. FACTS 1. On July 21, 2011, this Court found that due to a mathematical uncertainty, the General Election for Principal Chief was invalid. 2. On or about July 29, 2011, the Principal Chief set the new election date for September 24, 2011 (the Election Day ). 3. On or about July 29, 2011, the Election Commission set procedures, date, and timelines for a special election to elect the Principal Chief (the Special Election ). The timelines set by the Election Commission required that absentee ballots be requested by August 12, 2011, at 5 p.m. and returned to the Election Commission by 12 noon on the Election Day of September 24. The Election Commission permitted in-person absentee voting on September 17, 20, 21, and 22 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Election Commission offices in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. 4. The term of Principal Chief Chad Smith ended on August 14, 2011, according to the opinion of the Attorney General. For that reason, the elected Deputy Chief, S. Joe Crittenden, was sworn in as Acting Principal Chief, pending the results of the September 24, 2011, election. 5. On August 22, 2011, this Court entered an order upholding and interpreting the March 3, 2007, Constitutional Amendment where the People of the Cherokee Nation voted to limit Cherokee Nation citizenship to the exclusion of those individuals who descend only from the

2 Dawes Roll of Freedmen (the Freedmen descendants ) who could not otherwise trace to the Cherokee, Delaware or Shawnee Dawes Rolls. That order vacated the temporary district court orders that had permitted some Freedmen descendants to maintain citizenship in the Cherokee Nation thus dissolving those Freedmen descendants citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. 6. Because Cherokee Nation Election Law requires that a person be a citizen of the Cherokee Nation eighteen (18) years of age or older as of the date of any election, 26 CNCA Sec. 21(A)(1), the Commission began removing the names of the Freedmen descendants for the eligible voters list for the September 24 Special Election. 7. On September 2, 2011, individual Freedmen descendants, who were parties in a previously filed federal action, filed a motion for Preliminary Injunction 1 in said federal action to: a. Enjoin the Cherokee Nation from denying non-indian Freedmen descendants citizenship rights. b. Enjoin the Cherokee Nation from holding any election wherein non-indian Freedmen descendants would be denied the right to vote. c. Preclude the Federal Government from distributing funds to the Cherokee Nation. d. Recognizing any Cherokee Nation election. e. Recognizing the Government-to-Government relationship with the Cherokee Nation until such time the Federal Government reviews and approves Cherokee Nation s election procedures. 8. On September 21, 2011, Acting Chief S. Joe Crittenden entered into a settlement 2 with the Federal Government and non-indian Freedmen descendants on the issues presented in the motion for preliminary injunction, through which Acting Chief S. Joe Crittenden agreed to: a. Ensure all non-indian Freedmen are recognized as citizens of the Cherokee Nation, pending further order of the Federal Court. b. Ensure that all non-indian Freedmen who were eligible to vote in the June 25, 2011 General Election are permitted to vote in the September 24 Special Election for Principal Chief. c. Notify non-indian Freedmen, via overnight mail, that they are citizens of the Cherokee Nation and that they are entitled to vote and have their votes counted in the same manner as all other Cherokees. 1 See Freedmen Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:03cv01711(HHK), 9/2/ See Joint Motion for Entry of Proposed Order and Order, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:03cv01711(HHK), 9/21/2011.

3 d. Notify non-indian Freedmen descendants that they are eligible to vote at their precinct on September 24, 2011, or on a walk-in basis on at least two additional dates not otherwise available to Cherokee citizens. e. Provide non-indian Freedmen descendants who requested an absentee ballot prior to the August 12, 2011 with a notice that their ballot will be counted, along with an additional non-provisional ballot, and further notice that the non-indian Freedmen get an additional two weeks to return their ballot, extending the non- Indian Freedmen deadline to October 8, f. Refrain from counting all ballots cast in the Special Election until after the non- Indian Freedmen s extension of time has passed. g. Submit Cherokee Nation election procedures to the Federal Government for approval. h. Ensure that non-indian Freedmen descendants get all rights and benefits of Cherokee citizenship until further order of the Federal Court. See order attached as Exhibit A ( Agreed Upon Order One ). 9. Due to allegations that the September 21 order was not properly executed, the Freedmen descendants in the federal litigation filed a motion requesting that the federal District Court in Washington D.C. hold the Cherokee Nation in contempt of the order and asking for further relief. On or about September 27, 2011, Acting Chief S. Joe Crittenden ( Acting Chief ), through A. Diane Hammons, Attorney General of the Cherokee Nation (the AG ) entered into an agreement with the parties in the two pending federal cases concerning Freedmen descendants. See Vann v. Salazar, (D.C. Dist.) (the Vann Case ) and Cherokee Nation v. Raymond Nash, (N.D. Okla.) (the Nash Case ). The agreement resulted in the issuance of an agreed upon order ( Agreed Upon Order Two attached as Exhibit B) filed September 27, 2011, which stated that notwithstanding any provision of tribal law to the contrary, the Acting Chief was to: a. notify Cherokee Freedmen descendant voters that they were permitted additional walk-in voting days on 5 additional days past the September 24 Election Day (to wit, September 29, October 1, 4, 6 and 8); b. provide a non-provisional ballot along with notification that such ballot would be accepted so long as received by October 8, 2011, to all Freedmen who had requested an absentee ballot by the deadline set by the Election Commission (August 12, 2011) but who had not returned an absentee ballot as of September 23, 2011 and c. permit all registered Cherokee voters to walk in to vote on the 5 additional days past the September 24 Election Date. 10. Pursuant to Agreed Upon Order Two, additional walk-in voting days at the Tahlequah Election Commission office were added after Election Day on Thursday, September 29,

4 Saturday, October 1, Tuesday, October 4, Thursday, October 6 and Saturday, October 8, for all Cherokee citizens and non-indian Freedmen descendants who had been previously registered to vote. 11. Pursuant to Agreed Upon Order Two, absentee ballots from non-indian Freedmen descendants were accepted via mail after Election Day through noon on October 8, The Election Commission on its own decision permitted both Cherokee citizens and Freedmen descendants to submit absentee ballots via mail after Election Day. 12. Pursuant to Agreed Upon Order Two, absentee ballots from all Cherokee citizens and non-indian Freedmen descendants were accepted via in-person drop off on Thursday, September 29, Saturday, October 1, Tuesday, October 4, Thursday, October 6 and Saturday, October On or about September 30, 2011, the federal judge in the Vann Case ordered that case dismissed. 14. On or about October 9, 2011, the Cherokee Nation Election Commission began counting the votes cast in the Special Election. The non-citizen Freedmen descendant votes were counted and commingled with citizen votes. Absentee ballots which were received by mail after Election Day were counted. Absentee ballots which were delivered to the election commission via inperson drop off after Election Day were counted and commingled with absentee ballots which were delivered on or before Election Day. In-person absentee votes cast after Election Day were counted. 15. On October 11, 2011, this Court held; a. that the Agreed Upon Order violated the Cherokee Nation Constitution. b. that the Agreed Upon Order was in violation of this Court s order of August 22, c. that the Acting Principal Chief, S. Joe Crittenden, had no authority to bind the Cherokee People to an agreement without their consent when such an agreement would violate a provision of the Cherokee Nation Constitution. d. that the Agreed Upon Order is unenforceable. See Vann v. Salazar, SC (Cherokee Nation Supreme Court). 16. On October 12, 2011, the Election Commission certified the results of the Special Election declaring that Bill John Baker received 10,703 votes and that Petitioner received 9,128 votes for a difference of 1,575 votes. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This Court has original jurisdiction over any case or controversy involving Cherokee Nation elections that has first been addressed by the Cherokee Nation Election Commission, and/or which is specifically provided for by statute CNCA 51(2). Election

5 challenges shall be filed with the Supreme Court, and the decision shall include appropriate relief based on the alleged violation. 26 CNCA 102(D). The statute does not limit this Court s ability to fashion relief, and this Court has the authority to issue writs of mandamus as needed in support of its original jurisdiction. Cherokee Nation Const., Art. VIII, 4. This Court also has authority to enter a declaratory judgment if the Petitioner has an interest that is direct, immediate and substantial. Cherokee Nation Sup. Ct. Rule 113(a). I. BECAUSE SO MANY NON CITIZEN CAST BALLOTS WERE RECOGNIZED, THERE IS A MATHEMATICAL UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHO WON THE ELECTION. A. Non citizen Freedmen descendant votes were recognized in violation of Cherokee Nation statute. Allowing non-citizen Freedmen descendants to vote was contrary to tribal law which provides that to be eligible to vote the person shall be citizen of the Cherokee Nation eighteen (18) years of age or older as of the date of any election; 26 CNCA 21(A)(1). There were approximately 1,200 Freedmen descendants registered to vote in the Special Election the majority of whom cast votes which were counted in the certified results. The Freedmen descendants are not citizens of the Nation according to the Constitution and the decisions of this Court. As such, those votes should not have been recognized, and the number of votes cast by Freedmen descendants must be added to the mathematical uncertainty equation. B. Any vote cast after Election Day should not have been counted. 1. In-person drop-off absentee ballots were not separated based on when they were received by the Election Commission, and it is unknown how many of those approximate 1,539 ballots were received before and after Election Day. The counting of such votes delivered after Election Day was in violation of Cherokee Nation law. Cherokee law permits the acceptance of absentee ballots by personal delivery only on the Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday before the Election Day and on the Election Day itself. It

6 does not allow for in-person delivery of absentee ballots after election day which in this case was September 24, CNCA 78. As such, all absentee ballots which were hand-delivered after Election Day should not have been counted, and because it is unknown how many of the hand-delivered absentee ballots were submitted after Election Day versus before Election Day, there is no way to determine how many of said votes should not have been counted. The inability to determine how many of the more than 1,500 hand-delivered absentee ballots were turned in before Election Day adds to the mathematical uncertainty equation as all 1,500 must be deemed to be invalid. 2. There were approximately 510 walk-in votes cast and counted after Election Day in violation of Cherokee Nation law. Cherokee Nation law only permits acceptance of in-person absentee ballots at the Election Commission in Tahlequah on days immediately preceding an election, not after the Election Day has occurred. 26 CNCA 62(D). As such, those 511 walk-in votes cast after Election Day, or September 24, must be added to the equation of mathematical uncertainty. 3. There were approximately 107 absentee ballots received by mail after Election Day which were counted in violation of Cherokee Nation law. Cherokee law permits the acceptance and counting of absentee ballots delivered through mail only if received on or before the Election Day itself. 26 CNCA 78. The law does not allow for acceptance of absentee ballots received by mail after Election Day which in this case was September 24, As such, those 107 absentee ballots should not have been counted and must be added to the equation of mathematical uncertainty. Adding together the late mailed absentee ballots, late walk-in votes, and presumed handdelivered absentee ballots, the total ballots which should not have been counted reaches

7 approximately 2,500, which is more than the difference in votes between the two candidates. As such, a mathematical uncertainty exists. C. The limitation of late voting to votes cast only at the Tahlequah location was a violation of the fundamental right to vote for those Cherokees who do not live in or near Tahlequah or who could not travel to Tahlequah because such limitation was an unnecessary restriction which did not further a compelling government interest. The right of a Cherokee citizen to vote is a fundamental Constitutional right, and all citizens must be provided equal protection to that right. Most jurisdictions review infringement upon the right to vote under the strict scrutiny test which requires that the government infringement be narrowly tailored and serve a compelling government interest in order to restrict the individual s right to vote. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized. Id. The provisions of both Agreed Upon Orders allowed for additional in-person extended voting past the Election Day only at the Tahlequah Election Commission Office. Voters in voting districts besides District One were not given access to a local voting place. This scheme was basically an agreed-to reapportionment of districts by the Acting Chief for a single election which resulted in denial of numerical equality among voters. Further, it was an unnecessary restriction on access to voting for those who live far from Tahlequah even though they still live within the Cherokee Nation boundaries, and it was an even further restriction on access to voting for at-large voters who live outside the boundaries. No interest whatsoever, let alone a compelling interest, was ever asserted by the Acting Chief to explain why the in-person extended voting was limited to the Tahlequah location.

8 The election could have allowed for casting of in-person ballots at locations among the five voting districts. Because there was no compelling government interest to restrict access to voting locations, the restriction to Tahlequah for in-person voting was a violation of the Constitutional right of an unknown number of voters who were not able to travel to Tahlequah on the voting days after September 24, Because the number of people whose right to vote was improperly infringed upon by the single precinct limitation is unknown, there is mathematical uncertainty in the results of the election. II. BECAUSE THE ACTING CHIEF HAD THE AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE ENTRY OF THE AGREED UPON ORDER, AND THE ORDER WAS NOT BINDING ON THE NATION OR THE ELECTION COMMISSION, ANY VOTES CAST AND COUNTED DUE TO THE ORDER WERE INVALID AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN COUNTED. No Cherokee Nation government official has authority to take an action in violation of the Cherokee Nation Constitution or provisions of Cherokee Nation law. The Agreed Upon Orders which allowed citizenship and voting rights to the Freedmen descendants violated the Cherokee Nation Constitution s Citizenship provisions as interpreted by this Court in August Further, to the extent that the orders infringed on the fundamental right of all Cherokees to cast in-person ballots on additional election days, the orders contained unconstitutional provisions. As such, the Agreed Upon Orders were invalid and should not have been executed to allow Freedmen descendant votes to be recognized nor to allow acceptance and counting of votes cast after Election Day nor to allow a single location for casting in-person votes. This Court has already ordered that the Agreed Upon Order is unenforceable. CNSC SC (Oct. 11, 2011). A. The Acting Chief had no authority to agree to the terms and entry of the Agreed Upon Order.

9 The Principal Chief, and thus the Acting Chief, is required to follow Cherokee Nation law in all of his/her dealings. The Principal Chief shall cause the laws of the Cherokee Nation to be faithfully executed, and shall conduct in person and in such manner as shall be prescribed by law, all communications and business of the Cherokee Nation. Cherokee Nation Const., Art. VII, 9. The Principal Chief has only that power and authority as is provided by the Constitution and laws of the Cherokee Nation. There is no law or Constitutional provision which permits the Principal Chief to bind the Cherokee Nation or the Election Commission with a settlement that violates the provisions of the Constitution. Further, the Cherokee Nation laws and Constitution provide the Principal Chief with very limited authority with respect to elections. The Election Commission is an autonomous body and is granted Constitutional authority to administer an election under laws passed by the Tribal Council. Cherokee Nation Const., Art. IX. The Council is required to enact an appropriate law not inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution that will govern the conduct of all elections. Cherokee Nation Const., Art. IX, 1. The Principal Chief does not have authority to determine who will vote, when they will vote, nor how an election will take place except in the single case where the Principal Chief is required to order that a new election be held as soon as practical between the same candidates that participated in the election with the invalidated results CNCA 103. The Principal Chief on July 29, 2011, executed this duty and set the new election to be held on September 24, No statute or other Cherokee Nation law allows for the Principal Chief to change the new election date once it is set nor to otherwise affect how the election shall proceed or who shall participate therein. The law of the Cherokee Nation requires that special election deadlines may be changed and specially set by the Election Commission and confirmed by the Council to meet the

10 particular needs related to a special election CNCA 51(C) (emphasis added). As such, once the Principal Chief set the Election Day, the Election Commission was permitted to set deadlines and dates related to the election but these could only be changed by the Commission with Council approval. The law does not permit the Acting Chief to change these dates. The Council did not approve the changed of dates outlined in the Agreed Upon Orders. On October 11, 2011, this Court entered an order refusing to recognize the Agreed Upon Order from the federal district court. SC (Oct. 11, 2011). This Court found that the Agreed Upon Order contained terms that were in direct violation of the Cherokee Nation Constitution and an Order of this Court entered on August 22, SC at 1-2. The Court surmised that the Acting Chief had no authority under the Cherokee Nation Constitution to bind the Cherokee People to an agreement without their consent when such agreement would violate a provision of the Cherokee Nation Constitution. B. The AG had no authority to agree to the terms and entry of the Agreed Upon Order. There is no doubt that the Attorney General (AG) had the authority to represent the Nation in the Vann case. However, the AG s authority is limited and does not extend to allow for settlement of the issues as provided in the Agreed Upon Order. The AG shall represent the Cherokee Nation in all criminal cases in the courts of the Nation, and in all civil actions wherein the Cherokee Nation is named as a party, and shall have such other duties as the Council may prescribe by law. Cherokee Nation Const. Art. VII, 13. The Council has prescribed the duties and powers of the AG which are not otherwise stated in the Constitution. The Attorney General Act gives the AG limited power to settle cases and does not provide the AG with the power to make a settlement as was included in the Agreed Upon Order. The AG has no power to enter a settlement without approval of both the Principal

11 Chief and the Tribal Council where that settlement involves injunctive relief which substantially impacts the operation or programs of a Nation agency CNCA 104(B)(16). The Election Commission is an agency for purposes of the AG Act which defines agency as commissions, departments, Government-owned companies, or other instrumentalities of the Cherokee Nation. Id. at 102(A). There is no doubt that the Agreed Upon Order substantially impacted the operations of the Election Commission, and thus the AG had no authority to enter the settlement agreement without approval of the Tribal Council. III. BECAUSE THERE IS A PENDING FEDERAL COURT CASE INVOLVING THE SAME ISSUES WHICH LED TO THE AGREED UPON ORDER AND THE OCCURRENCE OF ELECTION INFIRMITIES, THIS COURT SHOULD ENJOIN THE NATION OFFICIALS AND THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF ELECT FROM BEING SWORN IN AS PRINCIPAL CHIEF UNTIL THE NASH CASE AND FREEDMEN DESCENDANT CITIZENSHIP IS FINALLY DETERMINED IN AN AUTHORIZED FASHION IN ORDER TO PREVENT ANOTHER INVALID ELECTION. It is urged that this Court withhold a finding that the Special Election conducted through October 8, 2011 is valid and to enjoin Cherokee Nation officials and Principal Chief elect, Bill John Baker from being sworn in as Principal Chief pending the determination by the Nash court as to whether non-indian Freedmen descendants are entitled to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. The Court may on the conduct of the Special Election find it invalid. Cherokee Nation statute provides that the Principal Chief shall order a new election be held as soon as practical between the same candidates that participated in the election with the invalidated results CNCA 103. However, there is still an outstanding issue of whether or not the Freedmen descendants would be permitted to vote in said third election. This Court has ordered that the Freedmen descendants are not citizens under the Cherokee Nation Constitution. However, the Cherokee Nation has filed the Nash Case in federal district court in Oklahoma requesting a decision be made as to the 1866 Treaty through which

12 the Freedmen descendants allege rights as Cherokees. The Agreed Upon Order which this Court has declared unenforceable under tribal law and in this Court was also entered in the Nash Case, and thus, the same issues of whether or not the Freedmen descendants should be permitted to vote would still exist in a third election so long as the Nash Case is pending; such an election would face a substantial risk of being declared invalid whether or not the Freedmen descendants were permitted to vote. If a new election is held before the case is completed, and the Freedmen descendants are permitted to vote but are later determined not to have had the right to vote, any new election could be invalidated and vice versa. Should this Court rule that the Special Election was invalid due to the infirmities caused by the Freedmen descendant issues and Agreed Upon Orders, any challenger in another election under the same circumstances would also be likely to prevail on the merits. Petitioner here will suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction if he is required to undergo a third election which might be declared invalid. The injunction would not substantially impair the rights of other interested parties. The injunction would be in the public interest or not adverse to the public interest since the Nation can continue to operate with the current Acting Chief, Acting Deputy Chief and Acting Council Speaker until the issue of citizenship of non-indianfreedmen descendants is finally resolved. As such, this Court should issue an injunction providing that Principal Chief elect Bill John Baker is enjoined from being sworn in as Principal Chief and no new election be held until the Nash Case reaches a final determination of the rights and duties of the Cherokee Nation in relation to the Freedmen descendants or until the Cherokee People vote to amend the Cherokee Nation Constitution to provide citizenship to Freedmen descendants.

13 IV. BECAUSE THE OFFICIALS OF THE CHEROKEE NATION HAVE ATTEMPTED TO THWART THE WILL OF THE CHEROKEE PEOPLE THROUGH A FEDERAL COURT SETTLEMENT, THE COURT SHOULD ENTER A WRIT OF MANDAMUS COMMANDING THAT THE ACTING CHIEF AND/OR OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL REFRAIN FROM ACTING IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT THEY RECEIVE COUNCIL APPROVAL PRIOR TO ENTERING ANY SETTLEMENT OR AGREED UPON ORDER IN THE NASH CASE. The Acting Chief has previously approved a settlement of a federal court case where execution of the court order was deemed unenforceable due to violations of the Cherokee Nation Constitution as determined by this Court. Because the Nash Case is still pending in federal court, it is possible that the Acting Chief shall attempt to act beyond the scope of his authority and attempt to settle the Nash Case in violation of the Constitution. The Acting Chief has a public, non-discretionary duty to refrain from taking actions that violate the Constitution. This Court has the power to issue writs of mandamus to compel a government official to act or refrain from acting on any public duty which is not otherwise discretionary. Cherokee Nation Const., Art. VIII, 4. It cannot be argued that following the Constitution is discretionary. As such, this Court should issue a writ of mandamus commanding that the Acting Chief and other government officials refrain from entering any settlement or order in the Nash Case without prior approval of the Tribal Council. This Court also has authority to enter a declaratory judgment if the Petitioner has an interest that is direct, immediate and substantial. Cherokee Nation Sup. Ct. Rule 113(a). In the alternative to issuing a writ of mandamus, this Court should issue a declaratory judgment outlining the authority of the Principal Chief, the AG, and the Tribal Council to bind the Cherokee People where such exercise of authority could be contrary to the Constitution.

14 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that this Honorable Court: 1. enter an order declaring that the election results of the 2011 Special Election cannot be determined with mathematical certainty until the pending issue of Freedmen citizenship is ultimately determined through the pending federal litigation, namely, the Nash Case. 2. enter an injunction prohibiting the swearing in of the purported Principal Chief Elect until there is a resolution of Freedmen citizenship rights in the Nash Case. In the event the federal court in the Nash case determines Freedmen have citizenship rights, the 2011 Special Election results may stand. In the event the federal court in the Nash case determines the Freedmen do not have citizenship rights, the 2011 Special Election must be declared invalid for want of mathematical certainty. 3. enter an injunction prohibiting the Acting Chief and other government officials of the Cherokee Nation from setting a new election date for electing a Principal Chief until a final determination of the Nash Case by judicial determination or until Freedmen descendant citizenship is concluded by a vote of the People reinstating the Freedmen descendants to citizenship; 4. enter a writ of mandamus commanding the Principal Chief and/or other government official to refrain from acting to settle the Nash Case in any manner which would provide for allowing citizenship in the Nation, and the rights concomitant therewith, to the Freedmen descendants in violation of the Constitution of the Cherokee Nation or in the alternative entering a declaratory judgment as to the power and authority of

15 the Principal Chief and/or Tribal Council and/or the AG to authorize a settlement of the Nash case which would allow citizenship rights to the Freedmen descendants; and 5. for such other and further relief to which the Court may deem the Petitioner entitled. Respectfully Submitted on this 17 th day of October, Chadwick Corntassel Smith, Pro Se Petitioner P.O. Box 275 Park Hill, Oklahoma State of Oklahoma ) ) ss. County of Cherokee ) VERIFICATION CHADWICK CORNTASSEL SMITH being first duly sworn, states that he is the Petitioner in the above styled and numbered cause, that he has read the above and foregoing document and the above styled facts contained therein are true and correct, to the best of his knowledge, on information and belief. Chadwick Corntassel Smith, Pro Se Petitioner Subscribed and SWORN to before me, the below signed Notary Public on 17th day of October, My Commission Expires: My Commission Number : My Seal: Notary Signature

16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that on the 17 th day of October 2011, I faxed, ed, mailed, or hand delivered a true and correct copy of the PETITION CHALLENGING ELECTION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS to the following: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE CHEROKEE NATION A. Diane Hammons P.O. Box 948 Tahlequah, Oklahoma diane-hammons@cherokee.org ATTORNEYS FOR ELECTION COMMISSION Cole Law Office Lloyd E. Cole, Jr. 120 W. Division Street Stillwell, OK fax colelaw@windstream.net ATTORNEYS FOR BILL JOHN BAKER Charles Hoskin, Jr. Attorney for Bill John Baker Cherokee Bar No S. 4th Vinita, OK fax charles.hoskin@sbcglobal.net Kalyn Free Attorney for Bill John Baker Cherokee Bar Application Pending 2248 E. 48th St. Tulsa, OK fax kfree@cwis.net Laurie Phillips Attorney for Bill John Baker Cherokee Bar Application Pending 1408 S. Denver Ave. Tulsa, OK fax lauriephillips@swbell.net Jason Aamodt Attorney for Bill John Baker jason@aamodt.biz Chadwick Corntassel Smith, Pro Se Petitioner