By Robin Mayes

In the matter of

Tehee v. Walkingstick

, it is my firm opinion that the Cherokee Nation Election Commission has not only failed in its duty to ensure a fair process, but has actively enabled an unequal and biased challenge against David Walkingstick’s candidacy.

From my perspective, Mr. Walkingstick has been subject to a level of scrutiny that is beyond the scope of constitutional fairness. This goes far past oversight and veers into targeted political obstruction. When a candidate submits the legally required documentation—verifying residence, paying the filing fee, and affirming their domicile—those actions, by definition, satisfy the fundamental requirements to be on the ballot. Mr. Walkingstick did just that.

Residency, as defined by law, equates to domicile

, which in turn is established by a person's intent to return to a specific address. Intent is a deeply personal and legally protected assertion—something that only the individual can truthfully declare. By submitting his paperwork, Mr. Walkingstick attested to that intent. There is no constitutional basis to second-guess that attestation unless concrete, credible, and contrary evidence is presented.

Unfortunately, what we are witnessing is an open door granted to his opponent, Candessa Tehee, to float endless alternative theories—none of which are materially relevant to the core legal question:

Has the candidate met the residency requirement as outlined in our governing laws?

The answer is yes.

It is not only inappropriate but discriminatory to allow one candidate's assumptions and conjecture to dictate the course of a legal proceeding. The burden of proof lies with the challenger. It is not enough to cast doubt; one must provide tangible evidence that the documentation submitted is false or fraudulent. In this case, that standard was not met. And yet, the commission appears to have sided with politics over process.

I speak from experience. I have filed numerous challenges before this very commission and in Cherokee court. I know the rigor required. What I see here is not rigorous—it's reckless.

What’s at stake is more than one man's name on a ballot. It's the integrity of our election system. It’s the right of Cherokee citizens to vote in free and fair elections without the shadow of institutional bias. When the rules are bent for some and tightened for others, we lose more than a candidate—we lose trust.

Robin Mayes,

Cherokee Citizen and Advocate for Fair Elections

As told to Cara Cowan Watts | Cherokee 411