October 28, 2026.
7,478 people voted in June Board election — 2,098 more than are registered for the BIA constitutional election.
As ballots are mailed to members of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians for a federally administered constitutional election, a significant disparity in voter participation deserves attention: Only 5,380 people are registered for the proposed Constitution election, compared with 7,478 people who voted in the Tribe's June 2026 Board of Directors election.
That is 2,098 fewer registered voters than the number of people who participated in the June election, a difference of approximately 28%.
The comparison raises important questions about voter registration, access to the constitutional election and the number of Tribal Members who will have an opportunity to decide changes affecting the Tribe's government and the rights of its citizens.
It also raises a broader question about how the election is being presented to the membership.
The Sault Tribe's official election webpage describes the proposal primarily as an opportunity to establish three separate, co-equal branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial.
However, examination of the proposed amended Constitution reveals a much broader package of changes. Members are not being asked to vote on the three-branch structure alone. They are being asked to approve or reject an entire constitutional document containing numerous provisions affecting governmental authority, elections, judicial powers, recall, referendums, citizenship, records and the future amendment process.
The ballot provides one YES-or-NO question. A YES vote approves the entire package; a NO vote retains the existing Constitution.
The voter registration disparity.
The June 25, 2026, Sault Tribe Board election results published by the Sault Tribe Guardian report that 7,478 people voted.
For the upcoming BIA-administered constitutional election, 5,380 voters are registered.
Election | Voters |
June 2026 Board election | 7,478 |
BIA constitutional election registration | 5,380 |
Difference | 2,098 |
The constitutional election's registered electorate is approximately 28% smaller than the number of people who voted in June.
This comparison is particularly important because the Tribe's enrollment rolls remain open. Adult enrollment reopened in February 2024, and thousands of additional people have enrolled since that time. The Tribe's membership continues to grow, making older published membership totals an unreliable representation of its current population.
The 5,380 registered voters represent the electorate for this particular Secretarial Election, not the total number of Tribal Members.
The disparity also raises questions about whether members who participated in the June election understood that a separate registration process was required for the federal constitutional election, whether they received information about registration and whether all eligible members had a meaningful opportunity to participate.
Federal Secretarial Elections have separate voter-registration procedures. Participation in a regular Tribal election does not automatically establish registration for a Secretarial Election.
These issues deserve clear public answers.
Only 1,614 voters could satisfy the minimum participation requirement.
The proposed amendments require three conditions for adoption:
- A majority of ballots cast must favor the amendments.
- At least 30% of registered voters must participate.
- The Secretary of the Interior must approve the amendments.
With 5,380 registered voters, the 30% participation threshold is 1,614.
Importantly, the 30% requirement does not mean that 30% must vote YES. It means that at least 30% must participate. A majority of the votes cast must then favor adoption.
Federal regulation, 25 CFR § 81.39, requires the Secretarial Election Board to count valid ballots and cast spoiled ballots when calculating participation. Spoiled ballots count toward turnout but cannot be counted as YES or NO votes.
Consequently, an election with only 1,614 participating voters could satisfy the minimum participation requirement if 5,380 remains the final registered-voter denominator.
That means a constitutional document affecting the entire Tribe could potentially meet the federal participation threshold with considerably fewer participants than the 7,478 people who voted in the June Board election.
The question is not simply whether the election meets the minimum federal requirement. It is whether a constitutional rewrite of this magnitude should proceed without broader participation by Tribal Members.
Why is the election being presented primarily as a three-branch government decision?
The Tribe's official election webpage repeatedly emphasizes the creation of three co-equal branches of government. The stated objective is to separate legislative, executive and judicial authority and establish checks and balances.
That is a significant governmental reform, and it is reasonable that the Tribe would identify it as the central purpose of the proposal.
However, the title and stated purpose of a constitutional proposal do not define the full scope of the legal changes contained within it.
The publicly available proposed Constitution is a 16-page document covering 14 constitutional articles and three Bylaws articles. It addresses far more than the organizational structure of government.
For example, it establishes a new Tribal Council structure, defines the authority of the Tribal Ogemaa, creates a judicial branch with trial and supreme courts, and establishes new procedures for elections, judicial appointments, recalls, referendums and constitutional amendments.
These provisions are interconnected, but they are also distinct policy and governance decisions.
The Tribe's public explanation focuses on the benefits of separation of powers. It does not provide the same level of attention to the individual changes members are being asked to approve as part of the complete document.
There is an important difference between explaining why a three-branch government is desirable and fully explaining every constitutional change included in the ballot package.
Members deserve both.
What else is changing under the proposed Constitution?
A review of the proposed document identifies several significant areas beyond the establishment of three branches.
Citizenship and the Bill of Rights.
Article III addresses citizenship requirements and future citizenship legislation. Article IV establishes a revised Bill of Rights, including provisions concerning equal protection, due process, political participation, employment protections and access to courts.
Members have raised concerns about whether existing rights are sufficiently protected and whether explicit guarantees of equal political opportunities regardless of residence should be included.
Judicial authority and appointments.
The proposed judicial branch includes a trial court and a supreme court. It establishes judicial terms, qualifications, election and appointment procedures, jurisdiction and authority to review governmental actions.
The document also provides for appointments to certain judicial positions by the executive, subject to legislative approval.
These provisions establish a new system of judicial authority that goes beyond simply creating a third branch.
Legislative and executive powers.
The proposed document creates a Tribal Council with 12 members and establishes its legislative powers, including authority over budgets, contracts, departments, tribal enterprises, laws and other governmental functions.
It also establishes the office of Tribal Ogemaa, with executive authority, including responsibility for administration, appointments, contracts and veto powers over legislative actions.
The proposal establishes a system in which the executive may veto legislative actions, with a three-fourths Council vote required to override a veto.
These are substantial changes to how Tribal government operates and how governmental authority is distributed.
Residency and qualifications for elected office.
The proposal establishes residency requirements for members seeking certain elected positions.
For example, candidates for Tribal Council must physically reside in the voting unit they seek to represent for at least one year before the election.
The proposed Ogemaa must reside within the Tribe's jurisdictional territory before election and move within a 50-mile radius of Baaweting within 90 days of taking office, remaining there throughout the term.
The proposed qualifications for judicial offices also include residency provisions.
These requirements are particularly important to members living outside the designated geographic areas who want equal opportunities to participate in Tribal government.
Recall and removal.
Article IX establishes new procedures for recalling elected officials, including the signature requirements and processes for conducting recall elections.
The proposal also establishes removal-for-cause provisions and procedures for filling vacancies.
Members have questioned whether the proposed recall provisions adequately protect the existing ability of Tribal Members to hold elected officials accountable.
Referendums.
Article XII changes the process for requesting a referendum.
Under the proposed language, a referendum may be requested through a petition containing signatures equal to at least 5% of the votes cast in the previous Tribal Ogemaa general election. It also establishes a return-rate requirement for a referendum to be considered valid.
These provisions affect the ability of members to challenge governmental decisions through direct voting.
Future constitutional amendments.
Article XIII establishes procedures for future amendments, including a three-fourths Council vote to call an election or a petition signed by at least 5% of eligible voters.
It also establishes a separate 20% ballot-return requirement and approval by a majority of the Tribe's voting units for amendments under that article.
These are important changes to how future generations of Tribal Members may seek constitutional reform.
Tribal records and financial transparency.
The proposed Bylaws include Article III, addressing access to Tribal books, records and financial accounts, including the Tribal roll.
The language provides for inspection upon reasonable request and directs the Tribal Council to enact laws governing disclosure and proprietary business information.
Members have raised concerns about preserving and strengthening existing access to records and ensuring that transparency rights cannot be weakened through subsequent legislation.
These are only some of the provisions contained in the proposed document. They illustrate why the election should not be understood solely as a decision about three branches of government.
Members are organizing for a NO vote and demanding a different process.
The Sault Tribe Guardian has published a series of editorials examining the proposed Constitution and the consequences of approving the entire package.
Members organizing opposition are calling for a NO vote and asking that the proposal be returned to the drawing board.
Their position is that Tribal Members should have the opportunity to consider the governmental structure separately from the other proposed constitutional changes.
They are calling for the opportunity to choose between a two-branch and three-branch government, followed by separate votes on the individual provisions affecting elections, recall, referendums, judicial authority, qualifications for office and other constitutional matters.
They are also demanding explicit, enforceable equal-rights protections for all Tribal Members, regardless of residence, including equal political opportunities and access to Tribal programs and benefits.
The demand includes preserving and strengthening existing protections under Article Three, Section One of the Bylaws, including transparency and access to Tribal records.
The concern is that members are being asked to accept numerous changes they may not support simply because they favor some form of separation of powers.
Supporting a three-branch government does not require supporting every other provision in the proposed Constitution.
Likewise, opposing the current document does not necessarily mean opposing governmental reform.
A constitutional decision deserves more than a single bundled vote.
The proposed Constitution will affect the structure of Tribal government, the distribution of authority, elections, judicial oversight, recall rights, referendums and the ability of future generations to change their governing document.
These are separate and consequential decisions.
The Tribe's stated objective of establishing three co-equal branches should not overshadow the other provisions included in the document. Tribal Members should have access to a complete explanation of every significant change before being asked to approve the entire package.
The disparity between the 5,380 registered constitutional voters and the 7,478 people who participated in the June Board election also deserves examination, particularly as enrollment continues to grow.
The future of Tribal government belongs to its citizens. Constitutional reform should strengthen sovereignty, protect equal rights, expand accountability and ensure that every qualified Tribal Member has a meaningful voice.
Members organizing opposition are making a clear demand: Send the proposed Constitution back to the drawing board, provide separate choices on the structure of government and individual constitutional changes, and guarantee equal rights for all Tribal Members.
A new Constitution should be written for the entire Tribe, not simply presented to the membership as a single YES-or-NO decision on a package of changes.
Vote NO on the current proposal. Demand equal rights. Demand transparency. Give Tribal Members a genuine choice in determining the future of their government.
