September 1, 2026.
The Sault Tribe Board of Directors has now acted on the two constitutional resolutions discussed in our previous editorial.
The resolution that would have delayed the constitutional vote failed, with the Chairman casting the deciding vote.
The second resolution, titled “Upholding the Membership’s Right to Vote and Enforcing Board Accountability,” also failed for lack of sufficient support.
That means the opportunity to use additional time to examine, improve, and potentially correct significant portions of the proposed Constitution was not a consideration for some board members.
The result makes the upcoming vote even more important.
We Still Believe the Constitution Needs Changes.
Our position has not changed.
We support meaningful constitutional reform. We support a government with stronger checks and balances. We support a separation of powers and a government that is accountable to Tribal Members.
But we do not believe Tribal Members should be asked to approve an entire constitutional document when important questions about equal rights, existing member rights, accountability and the voting process remain unresolved.
That is why we continue to recommend voting NO on the current proposed Constitution.
This is not a vote against constitutional reform.
It is a vote against approving a document that we believe should be changed before it becomes the governing document for generations of Sault Tribe Members.
The Board Had an Opportunity to Use More Time.
The resolution to rescind Resolution 2026-145 would have provided additional time for financial analysis, workshops and further consideration before potentially bringing the Constitution back to the Board.
Our position was simple: If more time is needed, use that time to make the Constitution better.
The Board Vote was tied and those that chose not to delay were supported by the chairperson.
That means the responsibility now moves directly to Tribal Membership.
Members will ultimately have to decide whether the proposed Constitution, as presented, provides the protections and governmental structure they believe the Tribe needs.
We believe it does not go far enough.
Equal Rights Should Not Be an Afterthought.
One of our primary concerns remains the absence of the clear, comprehensive equal-rights protections we believe should be placed directly into the Constitution.
Every Sault Tribe Member should have equal political and citizenship rights spelled out in the new constitution. Why should members have to pass a referendum to make that happen?
Where a Tribal Member lives should not, by itself, determine whether that member has greater or lesser political rights or access to benefits.
A qualified Tribal Member who lives outside the designated service area should not automatically have fewer opportunities to participate in tribal government than a member who lives within the service area.
We also believe the Constitution should clearly protect the ability of eligible descendants of current Tribal Members to maintain a path to enrollment without blood quantum becoming a barrier to their citizenship ever. If not included in the document at any time the board can pass a resolution to restrict tribal membership based on blood quantum as many other tribes have.
These are not minor issues.
They go directly to what it means to be a Tribal Citizen.
Don't Put All the Changes on One YES-or-NO Vote.
Another fundamental concern remains the way Tribal Members are being asked to vote.
The proposed Constitution contains numerous substantive changes affecting government structure, elections, recalls, referendums, courts, records, financial oversight, qualifications for office, sovereign immunity, the amendment process and other areas.
The Sault Tribe Guardian has previously documented that the proposal goes substantially beyond simply creating three branches of government.
Yet members are being asked to accept or reject the document as a whole.
We believe that should change.
If a member supports three branches of government but opposes a particular provision affecting member rights, that member should be able to vote YES on one and NO on the other.
If a member supports one constitutional change but opposes another, the member should not have to sacrifice one position to express the other.
Let the membership decide each major constitutional question on its own merits.
That is what meaningful self-government looks like.
Protect Existing Member Rights.
We also continue to believe existing rights should not be weakened simply because the Tribe is restructuring its government.
For example, the current Bylaws contain a provision allowing Tribal Members to inspect tribal books, records and financial accounts, including the Tribal Roll, upon reasonable request to the Board of Directors. Our previous editorial argued that this right should be protected and strengthened rather than made dependent upon future legislation.
A new Constitution should not simply create a new government.
It should create a better government.
That means stronger accountability, meaningful checks and balances and enforceable rights for Tribal Members.
The Failure of the Resolutions Does Not End the Debate.
The Board's votes on September 1 do not end the constitutional discussion.
They make the decision facing Tribal Members more important.
Now Tribal Members must determine whether the Constitution currently before them deserves their approval.
We believe the answer is NO.
We are not saying NO because we oppose a new Constitution.
We are saying NO because we believe the proposed Constitution should be better.
We want:
- Explicit equal-rights protections for every Tribal Member.
- Equal political rights regardless of where a qualified Tribal Member lives.
- Protection of existing Tribal Member rights.
- Stronger accountability for elected officials.
- Meaningful enforcement of constitutional and Bylaw rights.
- Stronger checks and balances between the branches of government.
- Separate YES-or-NO votes on major constitutional changes rather than one all-or-nothing vote.
- A separate question regarding the proposed addition of the Mackinac Band.
- A constitutional amendment process that gives Tribal Members a meaningful voice in future changes.
These are reasonable demands for a government that is supposed to belong to its citizens.
Vote NO — Then Keep Working for a Better Constitution.
Voting NO should not mean abandoning constitutional reform.
It should mean telling the board and the people developing the next proposal:
Try again. Make it better. Protect every Tribal Member.
