Community Testimony Highlights Serious Deficiencies in Recent MCA Election

By Isaac White

The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne's recent general election has sparked significant controversy and discontent among community members. A multitude of appeals challenging the election results led to public hearings by the Akwesasne Election Appeal Board. Reports of procedural errors, allegations of improper practices, and the exclusion of long-time voters have led to widespread calls for a thorough investigation. During the recent hearings, numerous individuals shared their experiences and frustrations, highlighting the need for accountability and transparency in the electoral process.

Throughout the first hearing, community members detailed various issues they encountered during the election. Many testified that they were turned away from voting despite having voted in previous elections for decades. Others reported problems with the voters' list, procedural mishandling, and a lack of clear communication from election officials. The overwhelming consensus among those testifying was a demand for a new election to ensure the integrity of the electoral process.

One community member testified about the problems with the voter list not being in plain sight, which caused confusion and prevented eligible voters from confirming their registration status. She emphasized that the lack of visibility of the voter list contributed significantly to the disenfranchisement experienced by many community members.

Another community member testified about the lack of chain of custody for the voter registrations, highlighting that thorough checks were not conducted to ensure proper handling of these critical documents. This particular Akwesasronon pointed out that this contributed to the procedural errors experienced during the election.

The testimonies revealed a pattern of dissatisfaction and a strong desire for corrective action. Community members expressed frustration with the electoral process and the barriers to exercising their right to vote. The call for a new election was a recurring theme, with individuals emphasizing the need for a fair and transparent process to restore trust in the electoral system.

The Akwesasne Election Appeal Board addressed the gathered community in response to these complaints. They acknowledged the issues raised but emphasized that their role was limited to making recommendations rather than ordering a new election.

Under the Akwesasne Election Law, the Appeal Board has the explicit authority to set aside the election results, in whole or in part, if it determines there were corrupt practices or law violations that likely affected the outcome. Section 14.6 of the law states:

“The Election Appeal Board may set aside the election, in whole or part, if it is satisfied that there was corrupt or fraudulent practice in relation to the Election or By-Election; or there was a violation of the Akwesasne Election Law that in all likelihood affected the results of the election.”

This power is significant because setting aside the election results would inherently invalidate the current election outcomes, requiring a new election. Despite this, Heather Phillips, the alternate board member, communicated to the community that their role is limited to making recommendations and that they cannot directly order a new election.

The chief electoral officer (C.E.O.) and administrative officer organize and manage elections. According to the law, these officials ensure the election process is fair and transparent. If the Appeal Board sets aside the election results, it would logically follow that the C.E.O. must initiate a new election to replace the invalidated results. However, the law does not explicitly outline the procedural steps that should follow a decision to set aside election results, creating ambiguity and the potential for misinterpretation.

The Akwesasne Election Law's lack of explicit procedural directions regarding the aftermath of setting aside election results has contributed to the current confusion. While the law empowers the Appeal Board to invalidate results, it falls short of clearly mandating the following steps: who must call for a new election and how quickly it should be organized. This gap in the law allows the board to distance itself from taking firm action, leaving the community without clear resolutions.

Phillips made statements during the hearing suggesting that the board could only make recommendations and could not fulfill the community's demand for a new election. She stated, “Our role as the election appeal board... we can't do what you've asked us to do. We can write up recommendations as to everything we find but the only thing that we have the power to do... is to accept it, set aside a part of it, or set aside all of it…”

However, the board's ability to set aside the election results would effectively force a new election, as the invalidated results would necessitate one. This creates what appears to be a logical requirement for a new election, even if the law does not explicitly state it.

The board's reluctance to acknowledge this responsibility and their focus on technical limitations was not met with enthusiasm. Given the significant issues raised during the hearings, the community members gathered to demand a new election was the crowd's sentiment. By emphasizing the board's power to set aside results and the subsequent need for a new election, it becomes clear that it can fulfill the community's demands.

The board's current stance on making recommendations rather than taking decisive action led to community member frustration. The law's ambiguity on procedural steps post-setting aside results leaves the community with more questions than answers. More importantly, the question is whether the Appeal Board will heed the community's call to set aside the results due to the numerous problems with the election.

Indian Time will provide more coverage for the second day of testimony.