July 26, 2026.
Before Sault Tribe Members Vote, They Should Ask Whether This Constitution Protects Their Rights.
In the coming weeks, Sault Tribe Members will be asked to make one of the most important decisions in the Tribe's modern history.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs will conduct a Secretarial Election on proposed constitutional amendments that would replace the Tribe's current governmental structure with three co-equal branches of government. The proposal advanced after the Sault Tribe Board of Directors unanimously approved Resolution 2026-145 and submitted the proposed Constitution to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for federal review. According to the Tribe, ballots are expected to be mailed later this summer or early fall, with the election scheduled on or before Sept. 26, 2026. To pass, a majority of ballots cast must favor the amendments, at least 30 percent of registered voters must participate, and the Secretary of the Interior must approve the results.
The Sault Tribe has described the proposal as creating stronger checks and balances through separate legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. That goal has broad support among many tribal citizens.
But supporting a three-branch government is not the same as supporting this Constitution.
Constitutions are intended to last for generations. They should receive the highest level of public scrutiny before voters are asked to approve them.
Transparency: Does the Proposed Constitution Weaken Members' Right to Know?
Perhaps the most significant concern involves government transparency.
The current Sault Tribe Bylaws, Article III, Section 1, provide:
"All books, records, and financial accounts of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, including the tribal roll, shall be open to inspection by tribal members upon reasonable request to the Board of Directors."
That language has long been viewed by many members as a constitutional guarantee of governmental transparency.
The proposed Constitution replaces that certainty with language directing the future Legislative Branch to enact laws governing disclosure of information, including proprietary business information.
Supporters argue this change modernizes tribal government and allows future lawmakers to balance transparency with legitimate confidentiality.
Critics, however, see something very different.
Rather than guaranteeing access to records, the proposed Constitution would leave future Legislatures with broad authority to determine what records members may or may not see.
That is a significant policy shift.
If members believe transparency is a constitutional right—not merely something future politicians may regulate—they should ask whether those protections belong in the Constitution itself instead of being left to future legislation.
The issue deserves a public explanation before the election.
Questions About the Mackinac Band.
Another issue receiving little public discussion involves language recognizing the Mackinac Band within the proposed Constitution.
For years, tribal enrollment has included descendants associated with the Mackinac Band while the Mackinac Band of Chippewa and Ottawa Indians continues to pursue its own federal recognition.
The proposed constitutional language raises legitimate questions that deserve public answers.
Why is this language being added now?
What legal effect, if any, would it have?
Could it affect the Mackinac Band's separate federal recognition efforts?
Could it have financial or legal implications for the Tribe?
To date, many tribal citizens say these questions have not been fully answered.
That does not necessarily mean there is a problem—but constitutional language should be understood before it is adopted.
Important Governance Issues Remain Unresolved.
A constitution establishes how government operates.
Yet several governance issues repeatedly raised by tribal members over the years are absent from the proposal.
Among them are:
- Term limits for Tribal Board members.
- Representation among the Tribe's voting units.
- Residency requirements for candidates seeking election as Chairperson or Board members.
- Whether the Tribe's governing structure adequately reflects a membership that now lives far beyond the seven-county service area.
These are not new concerns.
They have been discussed in tribal politics for years.
Whether one agrees with proposed reforms or not, many members may reasonably ask why these longstanding governance issues were not addressed while other constitutional revisions were included.
Representation Beyond the Seven-County Service Area.
One issue likely to remain controversial is the residency requirement for candidates seeking certain tribal offices.
Many enrolled members now live outside the Tribe's traditional service area.
Some argue the residency requirement effectively limits who can realistically seek tribal office because relocating a year before an election—without knowing whether one will be elected—is financially unrealistic for many families.
Supporters argue local residency ensures tribal leaders remain connected to the communities they directly serve.
Whichever position members support, the debate deserves more public discussion before constitutional language is permanently adopted.
The Vote Is About More Than Three Branches.
The Tribe has correctly stated that the upcoming Secretarial Election places the decision directly in the hands of tribal citizens.
That is exactly how it should be.
Even so I say VOTE NO to protect our rights.
