San Juan County Navajos in the driver’s seat
The shoe is on the other foot in San Juan County. Located in the Utah’s southeast corner, the state’s poorest county is now governed by a Navajo-majority county commission after over 120 years of non-Navajo leadership.
Per 2017 Census Bureau demographic estimates, the county’s population is evenly split between Native Americans and whites with a smattering of other ethnic groups. But the county has always been governed by its white citizens.
That changed last year when two of the commission’s three seats were filled by Willie Grayeyes and Kenneth Maryboy, both Navajos and both Democrats. This landmark change came about thanks to U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby’s controversial decision to impose new commission district boundaries clearly intended to elect a Navajo majority.
Prior boundaries had two of the three districts with white majorities while Shelby’s new boundaries have two districts composed of 66 percent and 80 percent Native Americans. Whites constitute about 89 percent of the third district.
Partisan gerrymandering by a judge is no better than partisan gerrymandering by prior office holders. I’m in favor of at least one ethnically-balanced district.
Unsurprisingly, San Juan County’s position on several hot-button issues has reversed. The new commission passed resolutions opposing President Trump’s reducing the size of the Bears Ears National Monument and drilling on federal land in the county.
Symbolic gestures are one thing; making progress on local issues is quite another. Sadly, positions on a number of local issues are divided on ethnic lines.
San Juan County is a microcosm of the complex interplay between the federal government, Native American reservations, and their non-Native American neighbors.
The Navajo Nation governs the reservation with its own executive and legislative council and judiciary. Despite billions of dollars of federal aid over the years, Navajo poverty and unemployment both remain above 40 percent — stunning in today’s booming economy.
The Navajo Nation’s misuse of federal funding has been a poster child for mismanagement, waste, and cronyism. The Arizona Republic published a shocking exposé of the organization’s blatant misuse of $1 billion of federal housing funds.
From 2008 through 2016, fewer than 300 houses were built despite a documented need for 34,000 units. Worse, the houses constructed were of such poor quality that a federal report stated, “This housing is lower quality than tents or shacks.” As a result, many sit empty today.
Meanwhile, the non-Native American county and town governments continued business as usual which generally meant ignoring or paying lip service to their Navajo constituents. San Juan County’s towns are overwhelmingly non-Native American.
Local officials instead spent their time trespassing on federal land to highlight their disapproval of land use restrictions and spending $360,000 of county funds to sue the federal government.
Faced with a Navajo-majority county commission, whites poisoned the political waters by backing proposed state legislation that would allow minority populations to create their own counties.
Adding fuel to the fire, a white-sponsored referendum to expand the county commission to five seats failed in a close vote last fall.
Spitting venom back, County Commissioner Maryboy called his white detractors “Mormon rednecks,” possibly true but destructive to political progress.
All this is reminiscent of the post-Civil War South. The county’s citizens need to recognize that Navajos and non-Native Americans will need to work together to address today’s problems. Neither group can do it alone.
I like the example set by Utah Congressman John Curtis and Navajo Nation president Jonathan Nez, who appointed a joint task force to make recommendations for county roads.
Political task forces are a slow and uncertain way to make progress. But I’ll take them over public rancor and name calling.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
Articles related to “San Juan County Navajos in the driver’s seat”
Navajo Nation awarded Reclamation contract for San Juan River Basin Recovery
Settlement announced in Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission v. San Juan County
Utah Navajos favor blocking Trump’s action against Bears Ears National Monument
The irony is that your recommendation for “one ethnically balanced district” would meet the actual qualifications for gerrymandering as it would be based on principally racially motivated purposes. On the other hand you never explain how the judge’s new districts are “clearly intended to elect a Navajo majority”, which the judiciary and many of us disagree on. Nor does the new map meet classic definitions of gerrymandering as it’s based largely on voting populations and geographic distribution; in fact there is reason to believe District 2 will be a swing given much of the reservation’s citizens are registered with any party while white citizens are overwhelming registered as republican across San Juan Co.
Your rhetoric does a poor job at accommodating facts. And the other statements about poverty and political priorities have nothing to do with the issue of gerrymandering.
The crux of my comment on gerrymandering is that voting districts should approximately reflect the county’s even ethnic split, not overtly favor either whites or Navajos.
You state that the new districts are based “largely on voting populations and geographic distribution.” It’s very difficult to see how that can be the case. The mere fact that, despite the county’s even ethnic split, two districts have large Navajo majorities while the third is 89 percent white is prima facie evidence of the court’s intention to elect a Navajo majority commission.
You state that “there is reason to believe District 2 will be a swing.” It may well be in spite of its 66 percent Navajo voting population. But arguing what “may well be” is a weak defense for failing to create at least one ethnically balanced district.
You provide no meaningful argument as to why all three districts shouldn’t be evenly split on ethnic lines. Instead you are casting about to justify what any objective observer would see as the court’s obvious intent.
The meaningful argument against being “evenly split on ethnic lines” is self evident to anyone that knows this case, Supreme Court rulings and the actual legal studies of real gerrymandering (not your outlandish claim of “judicial gerrymandering”). I don’t have to spend laying that out when you so blatantly ignore actual law and history in your column and flawed use of deeply rooted terminology.
You clearly don’t understand the legal issue of gerrymandering. You should read up on the Supreme Court case of Miller versus Johnson; it might help form a logical argument that actually uses history and jurisprudence on the subject. That case and Reno make it clear that prioritizing the outcome of one district being “ethnically balanced” is a violation of the equal protection clause and therefore unconstitutional. Race and ethnicity can not be the principal design criteria for redistricting. It’s ironic that your solution is legally worse than the situation you are critiquing.
You might want to study the geography of the region before making the claims you do as the situation definitely doesn’t support your conclusions. It’s superficial to claim the current design is “judicial gerrymandering” or “prima facie” evidence. Quite the contrary, it’s not accepted on its face nor has it been established as a legitimate defense. To be fair, your claim requires significantly more evidence given your lack of professional expertise in claiming a judges ruling is gerrymandering. Ironic given your reply.
And you clearly need to study up on the region. Look at how people are distributed across the land; look at voting histories of the likely swing district (66% Navajo doesn’t inherently mean much when most are non-affiliated with a party and voter registration is noticeably lower than the region’s white population); etc. When you diive into the actual data you’ll see the new district design is honestly reflective of the multiple demographic and geographic elements of the region, ie balanced for much more than your illegal focus on race/ethnicity (PS, Miller was a ruling by the “conservatives” of the court).
Your argument is weak at best and completely unsupported. Nor does one session, not ironically the first time tribal members have an elected majority, mean they are unable to work together. Especially after the previous white majority was successfully sued for actual gerrymandering. Anybody that understands group dynamics knows it’s going to take a while for the politics of that region to heal after such blatant political suppression. And it might sting for a bit after decades of illegal voting habits.
Here is someone who knows what they are talking about and uses data to dispell claims like yours:
https://mcimaps.com/gerrymandering-in-san-juan-county-utah-how-navajo-voters-have-been-discriminated-against/