NEW TOWN, N.D. – Tex Hall, former chairman of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, has lost his appeal for a new election.

Hall was defeated by 233 votes on Nov. 7 by Marcus Wells Jr. in an attempt to serve as chairman for a third consecutive term.

Hall and 10 supporters submitted complaints to the tribal elections board on Nov. 16, alleging illegal election practices by Wells and his supporters. The complaints also carried over to the 4 Bears Casino and Lodge management with allegations that casino cash vouchers were used to buy votes for Wells.

Hall accuses casino General Manager Spencer Wilkinson, a tribal member, of supporting Wells and using the casino to influence the election. Hall said the influence from the casino would create a bad precedent if not stopped. Wilkinson, who denied any wrongdoing, was not available for comment.

Some of the accusations, submitted by Hall and other witnesses, were of activities that were criminal in nature, but at a hearing the elections board stated it would not accept evidence on nor could it determine criminal conduct.

The elections board would not order a new election, stating that no evidence was given to prove any of the accusations, despite affidavits from many people claiming that campaigning and voter coercion had taken place.

Hall complained that his due process rights were violated because the elections board could not subpoena witnesses and could not deal with criminal conduct. He asked for a fair hearing with subpoenaed witnesses to testify before the board.

Fort Berthold District Judge Terry Pechota affirmed that Hall’s right to due process was violated and that the elections board erred when it refused to hear evidence that may be of a criminal nature. The board’s decision was based on its assumption that the evidence may complicate prosecution by the appropriate office.

Pechota stated that the election ordinance does not give the board subpoena power or power to hear criminal cases; but the tribal court, if requested, may have power to issue subpoenas for witnesses to appear before the elections board. He also stated that nothing in the elections ordinance prevents the board from hearing criminal evidence.

”Indeed the opposite is true. The Ordinance mandates that the board admit evidence, testimonial and documentary, presented by the complainants and by other interested persons having relevant evidence to present,” Pechota wrote.

He added that the elections board was correct in the assumption it had no jurisdiction over criminal offenses, but that didn’t preclude the board from hearing relevant evidence, whether civil or criminal in nature.

Pechota’s opinion was a reminder to the elections board that it should not be making determinations of whether evidence is of a criminal nature.

Witnesses at the elections board hearing alleged that Wells appeared at a polling place and handed a bag to a tribal member, that loitering took place at the polling places and that campaigning took place within 100 feet of a polling place. Vote-buying, bribery and intimidation were alleged as well.

Some people further alleged that challenge votes were not sealed; one allegation accused Wells of entering a polling place, and another stated that there was general disorganization at the polling place. Election judges were late, a ballot box left unattended, and that the election process was not well administered, were among the many complaints.

”A review of the affidavits shows that although some criminal conduct was alleged, there was none showing that any such conduct would change the vote count in the present case,” Pechota wrote.

The elections board, as did Pechota, found that even though there may have been some voting improprieties, even criminal in nature, those irregularities would not change the outcome of the election.

”How can we present evidence when he didn’t give us a chance to present it, he never gave us our day in court, at the end of the day there was no justice,” Hall said.

Wells said in a prepared statement that Hall’s allegations of wrongdoing ”have hung like a black cloud over this tribe and our people.”

”Defending against Hall’s attacks on our electoral system is expensive and takes precious tribal resources away from our people,” Wells stated. ”It is time to move forward in a positive way. It’s a new year and time to let go of the past. We need to work toward building a better future for our tribe.”

Hall met with his attorneys to decide the next move. As of deadline he had not decided whether or not to appeal Pechota’s decision.

One of the strongest complaints issued by Hall was the influence exerted by 4 Bears Casino and Lodge management.

”The troubling part for me [is that] casinos could end up determining elections, and that’s not what elections are all about, that’s not what the Constitution of the U.S. was founded on, and not what the constitution of our tribes were founded on,” Hall said.

”Everyone on our reservation knows there was wrongdoing.”

OUT OF WORK

Eight tribal members and former program directors of the tribe filed a lawsuit against Wells, the tribal business council and the tribe; they also asked for restitution and back pay because they were fired after the Nov. 7 election.

In the complaint, which was filed in tribal court, the plaintiffs accuse Wells of creating a ”hit list” of employees. None of those terminated were political appointees. The letters that were sent to the plaintiffs to notify them of their change in employment status indicated the reason for the ”layoffs” was budgetary in nature. The plaintiffs and others were terminated between Nov. 8 and 13, according to the complaint.

The claim was that the directors were fired because of their names and associations with Hall.

”They were fired because they put an X by Tex,” Hall said.

The court complaint stated that the layoffs, or firings, were done without merit and that the directors had brought in large amounts of money to the MHA Nation.

The complaint stated that Richard Hall, TERO director, brought in $400,000 and a new training program, yet was replaced by ”an inexperienced man.”

The plaintiffs, ask for back pay and benefits; re-instatement or buyout if the workplace is too hostile. They also ask for damages under the tribal insurance policy for breach of contract by improper termination, and damages for humiliation and emotional distress.

Plaintiffs also claim that Wells violated their rights to associate with whomever they wish.

The complaint was filed in tribal court on Dec. 7, 2006, with no action to date.

”We are a changing administration, and during every election where a new Chairperson is elected there is a change in administration. There are appointments and employees that change in the transition phase and this is no different than any other administration change whether it’s State, Tribal, or Federal. All of these changes occurred within the personnel policies and procedures of the Three Affiliated Tribes and were approved by the Tribal Business Council through Resolution No. 06-21-VJB titled Tribal Government Reorganization,” Wells said.

The plaintiffs argue that the tribal Personnel Handbook was not followed, which requires cause for termination and that an implied contract is in place that gives the employees rights.

The law provides that the full tribal council shall do the selection, termination and dismissal of any employee positions, the plaintiffs assert in their complaint.