Government & the Branches (Title 2)

Title 2 of the Navajo Nation Code sets up the central government — the part in Window Rock. It has three branches: the Council (makes the laws and the budget), the President (runs the day-to-day), and the courts (settle disputes and read the law).

Here’s the catch that came up in interview after interview: this three-branch setup was created fast, during a crisis in 1989, and it was meant to be temporary — a placeholder until the people built a permanent government of their own. That permanent design was never finished. That’s why people call it the “temporary government,” and why the same fights keep happening no matter who’s in office.

New to this? Title 2 & Title 26, explained  ·  Government 101

Just the few words you need so the rest makes sense.

Title 2 — the part of the law that sets up the central, three-branch government. Title 26 — the law for local government, the 110 chapter houses. Checks and balances — each branch can limit the others, so no one part gets too powerful. Fundamental Law (Beehaz’áanii) — Diné traditional law and teachings.

Want the full picture? Start with the lesson →

Before asking what’s broken, it helps to know who’s even supposed to be in charge. Here’s the map for the government’s structure: the law, the referee, and the watchers. Why this matters →

What’s the law?Title 2 of the Navajo Nation Code lays out the government’s structure — the branches and their powers. Whether it was ever finished — and whether the branches are in balance — is the reform question candidates answered on the record.

Title 2 & 26 · 101 → — Who regulates it? (the outside referee)A government’s own structure has no outside accreditor. The closest checks are the Navajo Nation courts (who interpret the law) and, ultimately, the voters, who must approve any structural reform.

Justice System 101 → — Who oversees it? (the inside watchers)The Council and the President are meant to check each other; the Office of Navajo Government Development studies and proposes reform; the Auditor General checks the money.

Audit 101 → — What’s broken — and what candidates would fixOn this page: the gridlock and the missing fiscal watchdog, plus how candidates answered — summarized from their interviews.

A starting map — confirm current laws and body names against the Nation’s official resources. General civic information, not legal advice.

• The President and Council fight, every year. Budgets stall, vetoes fly, and the public — the children in the middle, as one candidate put it — gets neglected.
• The reform was never finished. A “temporary” government has run for over 30 years. The powers of President, Vice President, Speaker, and delegates were never clearly drawn.
• No built-in watchdog for the money. When funds go missing, there’s no branch whose actual job is to guard the budget — so no one answers for it.
• The Diné way got left out. The structure was borrowed from outside. Many say it doesn’t reflect how the people governed themselves before — by clan and community.
• Things move slowly. Decisions get stuck traveling between the chapters and Window Rock, with no one clearly responsible for moving them.

These are problems candidates and the record describe. We name what’s broken — not accuse any one person.

“Do you understand Title 2 and the 1989 history? Why do the branches fight — and is the fix the design, or the people in it?”

Almost everyone agreed the President–Council relationship is broken. Where they split is why, and what to do about it.

Andrew Curley called the conflict structural, not personal — it comes back under every president because of how Title 2 splits power.

Charlie Smith Jr. — said Title 2 doesn’t clearly define the powers of president, vice president, speaker, and delegates, and the branches aren’t balanced.

Christopher D. White — White described Title 2 in his own words — too much power was given to the chairman, leaving the legislative branch out, so the power wasn't equal — and, when the host framed the Office of Government Development as giving power back to the people, asked “Is that right?”

Marsha Greyeyes — walked through the line-item veto and budget gridlock in detail.

Arvin Trujillo — put the fix the other way: rebuild the working relationship between the branches.

Kimberlee Williams — warned the recent reform push felt rushed and didn’t reach the people. And Emily Ellison traced today’s single-leader setup to a system imposed in 1921 — not the traditional way, which was led by clan and band chiefs.

Donovan Begay put it on the individual rather than the design — he’d govern “with the mentality of a chairman,” working with the Council instead of in opposition, and argued Title 2 exists because someone couldn’t be trusted, where he says he can be.

(Each name links to that candidate’s numbered question, so you can go hear how they answered.)

The unfinished government structure isn’t a problem all by itself. It’s the clearest face of a pattern that runs under every topic: leadership there to hold a seat, not to build or fix what they were trusted with.

In government: people run the motions instead of finishing the design — and money no one can trace. In 638 health care: the same root becomes weak boards and exposure to fraud. See it → In the enterprises: a yearly allowance instead of growth.

It’s often one problem in seven places. See the root — Accountability & Justice →

Where the community stands: collecting — tallies and best ideas publish with the weekly findings.

This isn’t just talk. There’s a written proposal — a new constitution drafted by Harrison Tsosie — that keeps the three branches and adds a fourth house called Government Stability, described in the draft as protecting the rights of the people, primarily the right to vote, along with vital statistics, insurance and records. An Office of the Inspector General would sit inside that branch, charged with ensuring each house follows the constitution and that the chapters follow the Local Governance Act. It’s built in the Diné way, rooted in Fundamental Law and hózhó, with the people named as the sovereign. Note: the draft we reviewed contains no procurement or competitive-bidding provisions. Those safeguards are in Title 2 today. What the draft does and doesn’t say →

Read what the proposed constitution would change  ·  Office of Navajo Government Development (the reform office)

A plan only matters if you can tell whether it’s working. Here are specific things to watch on this topic — so “we fixed it” means the numbers moved, not just that a law passed.

What to measure

• Budget passed on time, yes or no (and how many days late)
• Number of vetoes and overrides per year
• Whether the powers of each branch are clearly defined in law
• Money tracked end-to-end with no unaccounted gaps

How to gather the data
Track from Council records, the budget calendar, and the Controller/Auditor reports — posted publicly so anyone can check. What success looks like
Budgets on time, fewer standoffs, every dollar accounted for, and a structure people can actually understand.

Ask any candidate: how would you measure whether this is working? A real leader can name the number.

• Do you think the fix is the design or the behavior — and why?
• Name one specific power in Title 2 you’d change, and how.
• Do you support the new constitution and the 4th (fiscal) branch? Which parts concern you?
• How would the people get a real say — not just a Council vote?

• Title 2 & Title 26 — central vs. local government.
• Government 101 — the branches, oversight vs. management.
• Proposed Constitution 101 — the 4-house reform.
• Glossary — Title 2, Title 26, Fundamental Law.
• Watch the interviews.
• Compare candidates.

You’ve seen the takes and found yours. Go deeper on any candidate — everything sourced to their interviews.

• Candidate profiles — a quick overview of each person.
• Full interview write-ups — what each one said, topic by topic.
• Watch the interviews — straight from them.

All 7 topics · Next →
Healthcare & 638

Reading is step one. Here’s a concrete move on this topic: Learn what Title 2 actually says, ask candidates how they’d finish it, and vote on reform when it reaches the ballot.

See your full part — the To-Do List for the Nation →

This isn’t the end of it. You help decide what gets explored next — who Cal interviews, what questions get asked, what topics we dig into. That’s how we do this together.

Send an idea → Join the conversation →

Built with the people — and someday, by them.