Side by side: current law vs. the draft constitution
≈ 20 min read · or jump to the areas you care about
A · Primary source Every row below was read in the source documents: the August 7, 2025 working draft and the Navajo Nation Code Annotated. How we verify →
On November 3, 2026, the ballot will ask whether the Navajo Nation adopts a written constitution. This page puts the two worlds side by side, area by area: what the law says today, with its citation, and what the draft proposes, with its article and section. After each pair we note what would change, in neutral terms, and what supporters and skeptics each say it means. We never tell you which world to choose — that verdict is yours, on your ballot.
Two honest cautions before you read. First, the draft is a working document — the version read here is dated August 7, 2025, and it may be revised before the vote; where the final ballot version differs, the ballot version controls. Second, the "current law" side carries the Nation’s known publication gap: the published Code stops around 2009–2010, so some of today’s law cannot be independently read at all — a fact that is itself part of this story.
Reserved powers (the pivot)
Undelegated power moves from the Council to the people.
Current law — 2 N.N.C. §102(B)
Official source — the law as it stands
"All powers not delegated are reserved to the Navajo Nation Council."
The draft — Draft §211
Learning & information — what the draft proposes
"All powers not delegated herein are reserved to the Navajo people."
Supporters say: The foundational fix — government becomes the people's agent, not the reservoir of power.
Skeptics say: A symbolic line unless enforcement mechanisms make it real in practice.
Who can change the structure
Today one clause (council size) is people-locked; the draft people-locks the whole foundation.
Current law — 2 N.N.C. §102(A)
Official source — the law as it stands
Council is "88 delegates. This §102(A) shall not be amended unless approved by majority vote of all registered voters in all precincts."
The draft — Draft (constitution as supreme law; amendable by the people incl. initiative/referendum)
Learning & information — what the draft proposes
Constitution "shall supersede any legislative enactment"; initiative-made law amendable only as provided.
Supporters say: Council can no longer rewrite its own rules.
Skeptics say: Harder to fix mistakes in the document itself once adopted.
Legislative body size
Draft fixes the council at 24 in the constitution itself — ending the 88-vs-24 published-Code contradiction by constitutionalizing the practiced number.
Current law — 2 N.N.C. §102(A)
Official source — the law as it stands
2 N.N.C. §102(A): Council is 88 delegates in the published Code; 24 in practice post-2009 referendum (reduction never codified — the published-Code gap).
The draft — Draft §1503 (Legislative House)
Learning & information — what the draft proposes
"The composition of the Beehaz'áanii bi Naat'aanii shall be comprised of twenty-four beehaz'áanii bi Naat'aanii." A Speaker selected by the whole body. Quorum provision as previously recorded.
Supporters say: Continuity — no re-expansion.
Skeptics say: The published-Code confusion itself (88 vs 24) shows why the compare must cite carefully.
Veto & override
Today: one veto (President), overridable by 2/3 Council. Draft: legislation must pass the Legislative House AND the Stability House before reaching the President; the Stability House non-approval has no stated override path in Art. XIV.
Current law — 2 N.N.C. §1005(C)(10)-(12)
Official source — the law as it stands
President signs within 10 days (C(10)) or vetoes by letter to the Speaker (C(11)); Council may override by two-thirds (2/3) vote of the membership; veto/signing authority waived if not exercised in 10 days (C(12)). Verified verbatim in Code PDF pp.136-137.
The draft — Draft Exec. Art. (¶18-19)
Learning & information — what the draft proposes
TWO veto layers. (1) Draft §1406(F): the Stability House "approve[s] or veto[es] all legislation enacted by" the Legislative House by majority vote of a quorum, with a certified memo to the Speaker if not approved — NO override mechanism is stated for this veto. (2) Executive veto provisions (Exec. Art. ¶18-19) as previously recorded.
Supporters say: A structural check on rushed or self-serving legislation before it ever reaches one person's desk.
Skeptics say: An unelected-to-that-house body (regionally selected, not directly elected) can block any legislation with no stated override — a potential chokepoint.
Codification of law
The draft names a constitutional officer for exactly the gap this site documented (Seams in the Law).
Current law — Office of Legislative Counsel duty (established fact: OLC, not ONGD; published Code stops ~2009-10)
Official source — the law as it stands
No published consolidated Code since ~2009-10; five Titles never published.
The draft — Draft §30
Learning & information — what the draft proposes
Creates a "Chief of Legislative Codification and Law Revision."
Supporters say: Directly answers the you-can't-read-the-law problem.
Skeptics say: An office on paper doesn't publish a Code by itself — the current duty also exists and wasn't done.
Fourth branch / stability house
Creates an entirely new fourth branch holding: legislative veto, removal power over officials and enterprise fiduciaries, the audit function, anti-corruption hearings, utility regulation, and enterprise oversight — most of today's scattered accountability machinery, consolidated and elevated to constitutional status.
Current law — No equivalent. Distributed today: 2 N.N.C. §1005(C)(11) veto; Auditor General (12 N.N.C.); Ethics in Government Law (2 N.N.C. §3741 et seq.); ONGD (reform mandate)
Official source — the law as it stands
Current law has no fourth branch. Oversight/accountability functions are spread across the President's veto (verified), the Auditor General, the Ethics & Rules framework, and ONGD (chartered for reform, not codification).
The draft — Draft Art. XIV, §§1401-1419 (full read 2026-07-11)
Learning & information — what the draft proposes
FULL HOUSE. §1401: purpose = accountability of officials + protect/enforce the people's reserved powers. §1402-03: two Naat'aanii per Local Governance Support Region, selected BY the regions from among elected local Naat'aanii (not directly elected to this house); Legislative House writes selection rules if regions deadlock. §1404: age 30+, bachelor's degree REQUIRED, knowledgeable in Navajo culture. §1405: 4-year terms, 2-term lifetime cap. §1406: quorum-only action (solo demands void ab initio); election-integrity legislation; VETO over all legislation (see veto row); investigate corruption via a Government Anti-corruption Director; Office of Government Review harmonizes pre-existing law; REMOVE any elected official, appointee, or enterprise fiduciary for just cause, appealable to the Supreme Court. §1407-18 house ~11 bodies: Anti-corruption Hearing Board (5 members, NO elected officials, remove/censure/absolve, subpoena power, appeals to courts, §1409); Secretary/State Dept (§1408); Office of Government Review = ONGD re-established, 20-year constitutional review duty (§1410); Public Regulatory Commission (5 commissioners, utilities/telecom/pipelines/waste/transport, §1411); Inspector General = Auditor General successor w/ forensic audit power (§1412); Public Defender; Retirement; Insurance; Employee Benefits; Risk Management; Workers' Comp. §1419: 7-member Fiduciary Compliance Board over ALL tribally owned business entities incl. Section 17 corporations — members ELECTED by the Diné; shareholders retain derivative-suit rights.
Supporters say: The accountability gap candidates keep describing gets a permanent, constitutionally protected home the Council cannot legislate away.
Skeptics say: Enormous concentrated power in a body the voters do not directly elect; the education requirement (bachelor's) excludes many traditional leaders; no stated override of its veto.
Preamble & source of authority (Art. I-III)
Moves the source of authority explicitly to the people themselves, in writing — inherent sovereignty first, treaty second, delegated government third. Adds first-ever constitutional guarantees: anti-authoritarian clause, land-conveyance supermajority, no religious/residency/language test for office.
Current law — No current analog (no constitution). Closest: 1 N.N.C. §§201-206 (Diné Fundamental Law, 2002) + Treaty of 1868
Official source — the law as it stands
Today the Nation has no constitution. Foundational authority is expressed through the Treaty of 1868, the Diné Fundamental Law codified at Title 1 (2002), and Title 2's governmental structure statutes.
The draft — Preamble + Arts. I-III (draft PDF pp.6-8)
Learning & information — what the draft proposes
Preamble: "by our collective will" — bilingual, invokes Sa'ah Nagháí Bik'eh Hózhóón. Art. I: self-governance is INHERENT in the people, acknowledged (not granted) by the U.S. Constitution and reserved in the Treaty of 1868; establishes a "participatory democracy"; the people "retain their inalienable right to alter or reform their government." Art. II: national language is Diné Bizaad (§202); §209 "Rule by the People" — the government "shall not operate as a monarchy, theocracy, totalitarian, authoritarian or fascist government"; §210 permanent homeland — conveying >5,000 acres of trust land to non-Navajo ownership requires a 3/4 vote of registered voters who voted in the previous regular election; §211 reserved-powers clause (see row 2). Art. III: Rule of Law; laws made by three procedures — legislative, referendum, initiative (§305); oath to the constitution AND the Treaty (§306); "no religious, residency or language test" for office (§306); §307 people "shall not be overburdened with needless and excessive policing, laws, taxes, legal process."
Supporters say: The foundation finally says what Diné political thought has always held: power starts with the people, and the government is the borrower.
Skeptics say: Broad aspirational clauses (e.g. §307 "needless and excessive") may invite litigation over what they require; interplay with the codified Diné Fundamental Law is unstated.
Language & identity
Language and identity move to foundational-law status.
Current law — No constitutional-level declaration (statutory recognition scattered)
Official source — the law as it stands
—
The draft — Draft Art. II
Learning & information — what the draft proposes
"Declares Diné bizaad as the national language" and the people as Diyin Nohookáá Diné'é with unique lifeways.
Supporters say: Permanent protection no Council session can undo.
Skeptics say: Symbolic unless paired with programs; English-language government practice continues either way.
Individual rights
Rights expand from the individual-liberties model to include collective, cultural, and duty-based (K'é) dimensions — plus investor protections.
Current law — 1 N.N.C. §§1-9 (Navajo Nation Bill of Rights, 1967/1986)
Official source — the law as it stands
Equal protection and due process, religion/speech/press/assembly, searches and seizures, arms, rights of accused, jury, counsel, double jeopardy.
The draft — Draft Arts. V-VIII
Learning & information — what the draft proposes
Keeps a rights framework and adds: K'é duties of all persons (Art. V), treaty and collective rights with family-unit land use (Art. VI), a right to learn Navajo culture and language, and an Investor Bill of Rights (Art. VIII).
Supporters say: Constitutionalizes what makes the Nation the Nation — language, K'é, treaty rights.
Skeptics say: New rights create new litigation; "duties of all persons" enforcement is untested ground.
Judiciary & Peacemaking
Family Courts and a Peacemaking Tribunal become constitutional courts, not programs.
Current law — 7 N.N.C. §201; 7 N.N.C. §355(A)
Official source — the law as it stands
§201: "There is a Judicial Branch" — District Courts, Supreme Court, and other Courts the Council may create; Judiciary Committee shapes divisions via plans of operation. §355(A): the President appoints the Chief Justice, Associate Justices, and District Judges, confirmed by Council, from applicants recommended by the Judiciary Committee. Both verified verbatim in Code PDF pp.1277, 1303.
The draft — Draft Art. XVII
Learning & information — what the draft proposes
Judicial House "comprised of a Supreme Court, District Courts, Family Courts and Peacemaking Tribunal" — interpreting the constitution, fundamental laws, and statutes.
Supporters say: Diné dispute-resolution elevated to co-equal constitutional standing.
Skeptics say: Jurisdictional lines between four court types need working out; transition costs.
Chapters & local governance
Chapters change from units inside the central government to independent municipal corporations with their own three-way division of power.
Current law — 26 N.N.C. (Local Governance Act, 1998)
Official source — the law as it stands
Chapters are certified local government units under the LGA within the Nation's structure (Title 26 — one of the unpublished Titles; published Code carries the LGA framework only in part).
The draft — Draft Art. XVIII
Learning & information — what the draft proposes
"The Chapters will be reconstituted as municipal corporations and operate as independent organizations separate and apart from the central government. Local residents shall have the legislative power, elected officials have the enforcement power and Peace-Makers shall have the judicial power."
Supporters say: Real local self-rule — decisions made where people live; direct democracy at the chapter level.
Skeptics say: A big structural leap for 110 chapters with uneven capacity; certification and funding questions unanswered (see the certified-chapters finding).
Named constitutional offices
A fixed cabinet of constitutional offices replaces Council-made org charts; each recallable by the people.
Current law — Offices created by statute/plan of operation, changeable by Council
Official source — the law as it stands
Divisions and offices exist by ordinary legislation.
The draft — Draft Art. XIX (§§24-30)
Learning & information — what the draft proposes
Constitutionalizes named officers: Fiduciary Business Council, Chief Agriculture, Culture/Heritage/Language Preservation, Design/Engineering/Standards, Transportation & Roads, Public Services Regulatory (oversight/investigative), Legislative Codification — appointed "with Confirmation subject to Recall by People."
Supporters say: Stability — core functions can't be reorganized away; people hold the leash.
Skeptics say: Rigid: a needed reorganization requires constitutional change; long named lists date quickly.
Elections, initiative & referendum
People gain direct lawmaking (initiative) at constitutional level, with a 20-year amendment lock on initiative-made law.
Current law — 11 N.N.C. (Elections — an UNPUBLISHED Title; procedures known via NEA practice); referendum exists via Council measure (per Jamie Henio on tape)
Official source — the law as it stands
Title 11 governs elections but is among the five never-published Titles — the exact gap the Seams finding documents.
The draft — Draft Art. XI + initiative provisions
Learning & information — what the draft proposes
"The Navajo Nation is a participatory democracy… The Diné and Citizens have the right to elect their representatives and remove them." Initiative: passes at "50 percent plus 1 of the popular votes," supersedes any legislative enactment, amendable after twenty years.
Supporters say: Direct democracy with real teeth — the people can legislate over the Council.
Skeptics say: A 20-year lock on citizen-made law is extraordinary — a mistake passed by initiative is nearly unfixable for a generation.
Recall & removal of officials
Removal power moves from inside government (Council over its members) to the people directly, and extends to appointees.
Current law — 2 N.N.C. (Council disciplines own members, §102(D)); removal provisions scattered
Official source — the law as it stands
"The Navajo Nation Council shall have all powers to discipline and/or regulate the conduct of its members, including removal."
The draft — Draft (recall provisions; Art. XIX)
Learning & information — what the draft proposes
Provides "recall of elected officials who lose the confidence of the people"; even appointed chief executive officers sit "with Confirmation subject to Recall by People."
Supporters say: Accountability that doesn't depend on colleagues policing colleagues.
Skeptics say: Recall campaigns can become permanent politics; stability worry.
Money: enterprises, funds & per capita
Adds constitutional per-capita authority and a fiduciary oversight layer with named offices.
Current law — 12 N.N.C. (Appropriations, Permanent Fund); enterprises under individual enabling acts
Official source — the law as it stands
Revenues managed through the Council appropriations process and the Permanent Fund; no per-capita distribution authority in current structure.
The draft — Draft §§609, 24
Learning & information — what the draft proposes
Business dividends "shall be held in common and managed for the common benefit of the Navajo people"; "A per capita distribution to the Diné is also authorized, however, the fund shall not be depleted on a regular basis." A Fiduciary Business Council (§24) plus named chief officers (§§25-30) oversee.
Supporters say: Direct benefit to the people; professionalized oversight of enterprise money.
Skeptics say: Per-capita is a well-known double-edge (services vs. checks); "not depleted on a regular basis" needs hard definition.
Transition & continuity
Not a teardown: existing institutions carry over and conform gradually.
Current law — —
Official source — the law as it stands
—
The draft — Draft transition clauses (§1414 et al.)
Learning & information — what the draft proposes
Existing offices (Public Defenders, Retirement Services, etc.) "continue to operate pursuant to enabling legislation, however, amendments shall be made to be consistent with" the constitution.
Supporters say: Answers the disruption worry — adoption is a re-foundation, not a restart.
Skeptics say: "Amendments shall be made" by whom and by when is unspecified; conformity fights could take years.
Right to exclude
Exclusion power gets an explicit constitutional article with named circumstances.
Current law — Treaty of 1868 Art. II (as applied); no constitutional article
Official source — the law as it stands
—
The draft — Draft Art. XIII
Learning & information — what the draft proposes
Establishes the right to exclude non-members under Treaty Art. II and Worcester v. Georgia (1832), and "the circumstances under which non-members and state laws can be excluded."
Supporters say: Sovereignty made operational, not just asserted.
Skeptics say: Named circumstances can read as limits; federal-court friction possible.
Do one thing with this page
Take action
Pick the one area above that touches your life most — your chapter, your water, your job, your land — and read that pair twice. Then ask one person in your family what they think. Registration for the November 3 ballot stays open until September 24 at 5:00 pm. How to vote & register →