How Pechanga Tribal Law Was Ignored — and How Justice Can Still Be Restored Part ONE of THREE

Part one of three in this series 

How Pechanga Tribal Law Was Ignored — and How Justice Can Still Be Restored

In June and July of 2005, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians took a decisive step to end disenrollment and restore unity within the Tribe. Through a duly noticed process, the Pechanga General Council—the highest governing authority of the Tribe—passed a petition into binding tribal law. That law repealed all disenrollment procedures and reaffirmed the membership status of all enrolled members as of June 19, 2005.

Less than a year later, that law was ignored.

What follows is not a matter of opinion or political disagreement. It is a matter of tribal law, constitutional authority, and governance—and how those principles were violated.

The 2005 Petition: A Lawful Act of Tribal Sovereignty

On June 19, 2005, the Pechanga General Council voted to justify a petition with a clear and limited purpose:
to repeal disenrollment procedures and to bring harmony and peace back to the membership.

That petition was then voted into law on July 17, 2005. Its provisions were explicit:

• Disenrollment procedures were repealed effective June 19, 2005

• All individuals on the membership roll as of that date were declared qualified members for all purposes under tribal law

• Lineal descendants of those members likewise met membership qualifications

• The Enrollment Committee was prohibited from investigating members for disenrollment purposes

During debate, the Pechanga legal department confirmed that the General Council had full authority under the Tribe’s Constitution and Bylaws to enact this petition as law. No constitutional conflict was identified.

This is significant. Tribal sovereignty includes the power of a tribe to govern itself according to its own laws. In Pechanga, that authority rests ultimately with the General Council.

“All Means All”

Questions arose during the debate about whether the new law applied to pending disenrollment cases, including that of the lineal descendants of Paulina Hunter. Then–Chairman Mark Macarro responded plainly: “All means all.”

There was no exception carved out. No delay clause. No grandfathering of pending cases.

Elder Norman Pico further noted that disenrollment is not even mentioned in the Pechanga Constitution and Bylaws. Because no exclusive authority is granted to the Enrollment Committee, the General Council retained final authority—and exercised it by outlawing disenrollment altogether.  THAT is tribal law

What the Constitution Actually Says

Two provisions of the Pechanga Constitution and Bylaws are especially relevant.

Article VIII states:

“The simple majority of members present shall rule and decide in all matters of government and business of the Band unless stipulated otherwise in these Bylaws.”

Article V requires that elected officials:

“Uphold and enforce the Constitution, Bylaws, and ordinances of the Temecula Band of Luiseño Mission Indians; and also uphold the individual rights of each member without malice or prejudice.”

In other words:

• The General Council has final authority unless expressly limited

• Tribal officials have a duty—not discretion—to enforce tribal law

The Illegal Disenrollment of 2006

Despite the repeal of disenrollment procedures effective June 19, 2005, the lineal descendants of Paulina Hunter were disenrolled on March 16, 2006.

By that date:

• The disenrollment procedures no longer existed

• The Enrollment Committee had no lawful authority to investigate or act

• Tribal law explicitly protected those already on the membership roll

Any action taken under repealed procedures is legally void. As a matter of basic governance, decisions made without lawful authority cannot stand.

This is why the 2006 disenrollment was not merely unfair—it was illegal under Pechanga’s own laws.

Why This Matters Beyond One Family

This issue is not just about one disenrollment case. It raises fundamental questions:

• Does Pechanga law mean what it says?

• Does the General Council’s authority matter?

• Are elected officials bound by tribal law, or only when convenient?

A tribe’s sovereignty is strongest when its laws are followed. Ignoring duly enacted law weakens governance, erodes trust, and harms the entire community.

How Justice Can Still Be Restored

The path forward does not require new law, outside intervention, or loss of sovereignty. Justice can be achieved through lawful, internal means. At least four options exist:

1. Immediate reinstatement of those disenrolled in violation of the 2005 law

2. Formal acknowledgment by the Tribal Council that the 2006 disenrollment lacked legal authority

3. Referral of the issue back to the General Council, where authority properly resides

4. A corrective resolution reaffirming the validity of the 2005 petition and restoring wrongfully taken rights

Each option respects tribal sovereignty, honors Pechanga law, and restores confidence in governance.

A Question for the Community

After the illegal disenrollment, assurances were made that “things would be made right.” Others stated they were not afraid of those who orchestrated the disenrollment.

If that is true, the question remains:
Why has tribal law still not been enforced?

This is not about revisiting the past for its own sake. It is about whether justice, law, and accountability have a place in Pechanga’s future.

Tribal law provides the solution. All that is required is the will to follow it.