A legal dispute over the timing and transparency of the 2026 Three Affiliated Tribes election has raised questions about whether candidates and voters were given adequate notice of changes to election rules.
Former Three Affiliated Tribes Chairman Tex Hall appealed to the Fort Berthold Tribal District Court after he was denied the opportunity to obtain a Notice of Candidacy for the 2026 Tribal Chairman election. Hall argued that the Tribe’s Constitution permits qualified candidates to file their notice of candidacy at least 15 days before the September 22 primary election, meaning candidates could file as late as September 7.
Hall also challenged an election ordinance adopted by the Tribal Business Council on May 7, 2026, which established an earlier deadline for candidates to submit their notices. According to Hall, the ordinance was enacted without adequate notice to Tribal members and candidates.
The dispute was further complicated by a June 15 public notice from the Tribal Election Board stating that applications for candidacy would be accepted through August 13. Hall said he and other potential candidates relied on that publicly announced deadline.
According to Hall, however, the Election Board ultimately enforced a different deadline that had not been publicly communicated to Tribal members.
“This blatant and unlawful violation of the Three Affiliated Tribe’s Constitution by the current Tribal Business Council should be of the utmost concern for every member of the Three Affiliated Tribes, regardless of who they plan to vote for in the upcoming election,” Hall said in a statement. “Every eligible voter and potential candidate deserves a fair and equal opportunity to participate in our Tribe’s democratic process.”
Hall argued that the Tribe’s Constitution is the supreme governing document for the Tribal government and said changes to election requirements should not be made without proper notice and adherence to constitutional procedures.
The Election Board has taken the position that the Tribe may enact election ordinances establishing requirements that differ from the constitutional provisions cited by Hall. It has also argued that providing Tribal members with a copy of the revised ordinance was not required.
The Fort Berthold Tribal District Court denied Hall’s appeal in an August 13 order issued without a hearing. According to Hall’s account of the ruling, the court determined that the Election Ordinance was valid and could alter the applicable election requirements.
The ruling has prompted broader questions about election transparency, particularly regarding how changes to election rules are communicated to candidates and voters.
At the center of the dispute is whether the 2026 election process has been administered consistently with the Three Affiliated Tribes’ governing laws and whether potential candidates received sufficient notice of applicable deadlines.
Hall said the issue extends beyond his own candidacy.
“Regardless of political affiliation or support for any particular candidate, this case raises fundamental questions about fairness, transparency, and accountability in Tribal government,” Hall said. “The public deserves free and fair elections with clear election rules, advance notice of critical deadlines, and the confidence that the same standards apply to everyone equally.”
The September 22 primary election is scheduled to determine which candidates advance in the Three Affiliated Tribes’ 2026 election. The dispute over the candidacy deadline could continue to draw scrutiny from Tribal members as the election approaches.
The statements and allegations in this article concerning the Business Council, Election Board and court proceedings are attributed to Hall and the information provided in connection with his appeal. The Tribal Business Council, Election Board and Fort Berthold Tribal District Court were not independently quoted in the material provided for this article.
